View allAll Photos Tagged Configuration
The Kenworth T680 Day Cab equipped with a PACCAR MX-11 engine and 6x2 configuration saves Food Express more than 1,500 pounds compared to the previous generation of trucks it had in service. Photo courtesy of Brady Gillman.
New configuration, new category and new factory. "She takes after Auntie Giulia !"
1972 - 1984
1.186 cc
4 Cylinder Boxer
63 cv @ 6.000 rpm
83 Nm @ 3.500 rpm
Vmax : 152 km/h
920 kg
900.925 ex. (Alfasud)
Museo Storico Alfa-Romeo
Viale Alfa-Romeo
Arese
Italy - Italia
November 2018
Built in 1946 as B35 for RAF marked RS709, in 1952 converted to TT.35. In 1963 registered G-ASKA, in 1970 N9797 later N98DH, in 1981 G-MOSI. Restored to USAAF PRXVI configuration and falsely marked NS519 in National Museum of USAF, Wright-Patterson AFB near Dayton, OH, USA 5. October 2017
An Atlas-D rocket in Mercury-Atlas Configuration is on display at Kennedy Space Center.
Atlas LV-3B
The Atlas LV-3B, Atlas D Mercury Launch Vehicle or Mercury-Atlas Launch Vehicle, was a human-rated expendable launch system used as part of the United States Project Mercury to send astronauts into low Earth orbit. Manufactured by American aircraft manufacturing company Convair, it was derived from the SM-65D Atlas missile, and was a member of the Atlas family of rockets.
The Atlas D missile was the natural choice for Project Mercury since it was the only launch vehicle in the US arsenal that could put the spacecraft into orbit and also had a large number of flights to gather data from. But its reliability was far from perfect and Atlas launches ending in explosions were an all-too common sight at Cape Canaveral. Thus, significant steps had to be taken to human-rate the missile and make it safe and reliable unless NASA wished to spend several years developing a dedicated launch vehicle for crewed programs or else wait for the next-generation Titan II ICBM to become operational. Atlas’s stage-and-a-half configuration was seen as somewhat preferable to the two stage Titan in that all engines were ignited at liftoff, making it easier to test for hardware problems during prelaunch checks.
Shortly after being chosen for the program in early 1959, the Mercury astronauts were taken to watch the second D-series Atlas test, which exploded a minute into launch. This was the fifth straight complete or partial Atlas failure and the booster was at this point nowhere near reliable enough to carry a nuclear warhead or an uncrewed satellite, let alone a human passenger. Plans to human-rate Atlas were effectively still on the drawing board and Convair estimated that 75% reliability would be achieved by early 1961 and 85% reliability by the end of the year.
•General Specifications:
oFunction: Crewed Expendable Launch System
oManufacturer: Convair
oCountry of Origin: United States
•Size:
oHeight: 28.7 meters (94.3 ft)
oDiameter: 3.0 meters (10.0 ft); Width Over Boost Fairing: 4.9 meters (16 ft)
oMass: 120,000 kilograms (260,000 lb)
oStages: 1½
•Capacity:
oPayload to LEO: 1,360 kilograms (3,000 lb)
•Launch History:
oStatus: Retired
oLaunch Sites: CCAFS LC-14
oTotal Launches: 9
oSuccesses: 7
oFailures: 2
oFirst Flight: July 29, 1960
oLast Flight: May 15, 1963
•Boosters:
oNumber of Boosters: 1
oEngines: 2
oThrust: 1,517.4 kilonewtons (341,130 lbf)
oBurn Time: 134 seconds
oFuel: RP-1/LOX
•First Stage:
oDiameter: 3.0 meters (10.0 ft)
oEngines: 1
oThrust: 363.22 kilonewtons (81,655 lbf)
oBurn Time: 5 minutes
oFuel: RP-1/LOX
Quality Assurance
Aside from the modifications described below, Convair set aside a separate assembly line dedicated to Mercury-Atlas vehicles which was staffed by personnel who received special orientation and training on the importance of the crewed space program and the need for as high quality workmanship as possible. Components used in the Mercury-Atlas vehicles were given thorough testing to ensure proper manufacturing quality and operating condition, in addition components and subsystems with excessive operating hours, out-of-specification performance, and questionable inspection records would be rejected. All components approved for the Mercury program were earmarked and stored separately from hardware intended for other Atlas programs and special handling procedures were done to protect them from damage.
Propulsion systems used for the Mercury vehicles would be limited to standard D-series Atlas models of the Rocketdyne MA-2 engines which had been tested and found to have performance parameters closely matching NASA’s specifications.
All launch vehicles would have to be complete and fully flight-ready at delivery to Cape Canaveral with no missing components or unscheduled modifications/upgrades. After delivery, a comprehensive inspection of the booster would be undertaken and prior to launch, a flight review board would convene to approve each booster as flight-ready. The review board would conduct an overview of all prelaunch checks, and hardware repairs/modifications. In addition, Atlas flights over the past few months in both NASA and Air Force programs would be reviewed to make sure no failures occurred involving any components or procedures relevant to Project Mercury.
The NASA Quality Assurance Program meant that each Mercury-Atlas vehicle took twice as long to manufacture and assemble as an Atlas designed for uncrewed missions and three times as long to test and verify for flight.
Systems Modified
Abort Sensor
Central to these efforts was the development of the Abort Sensing and Implementation System (ASIS), which would detect malfunctions in the Atlas’s various components and trigger a launch abort if necessary. Added redundancy was built in; if ASIS itself failed, the loss of power would also trigger an abort. The system was tested on a few Atlas ICBM flights prior to Mercury-Atlas 1 in July 1960, where it was operated open-loop (MA-3 in April 1961 would be the first closed-loop flight).
The Mercury launch escape system (LES) used on Redstone and Atlas launches was identical, but the ASIS system varied considerably between the two boosters as Atlas was a much larger, more complex vehicle with five engines, two of which were jettisoned during flight, a more sophisticated guidance system, and inflated balloon tanks that required constant pressure to not collapse.
Atlas flight test data was used to draw up a list of the most likely failure modes for the D-series vehicles, however simplicity reasons dictated that only a limited number of booster parameters could be monitored. An abort could be triggered by the following conditions, all of which could be indicative of a catastrophic failure:
•The booster flight path deviated too far from the planned trajectory
•Engine thrust or hydraulic pressure dropped below a certain level
•Propellant tank pressure dropped below a certain level
•The intermediate tank bulkhead showed signs of losing structural integrity
•The booster electrical system ceased operating
•The ASIS system ceased operating
Some failure modes such as an erroneous flight path did not necessarily pose an immediate danger to the astronaut’s safety and the flight could be terminated via a manual command from the ground (e.g. Mercury-Atlas 3). Other failure modes such as loss of engine thrust in the first few moments of liftoff required an immediate abort signal as there would be little or no time to command a manual abort.
An overview of failed Atlas test flights showed that there were only a few times that malfunctions occurred suddenly and without prior warning, for instance on Missile 6B when one turbopump failed 80 seconds into the launch. Otherwise, most failures were preceded by obvious deviations from the booster’s normal operating parameters. Automatic abort was only necessary in a situation like Atlas 6B where the failure happened so fast that there would be no time for a manual abort and most failure modes left enough time for the astronaut or ground controllers to manually activate the LES. A bigger concern was setting up the abort system so as to not go off when normal, minor performance deviations occurred.
Rate Gyros
The rate gyro package was placed much closer to the forward section of the LOX tank due to the Mercury/LES combination being considerably longer than a warhead and thus producing different aerodynamic characteristics (the standard Atlas D gyro package was still retained on the vehicle for the use of the ASIS). Mercury-Atlas 5 also added a new reliability feature—motion sensors to ensure proper operation of the gyroscopes prior to launch. This idea had originally been conceived when the first Atlas B launch in 1958 went out of control and destroyed itself after ground crews forgot to power on the gyroscope motors during prelaunch preparation, but it was phased into Atlas vehicles only gradually. One other Atlas missile test in 1961 also destroyed itself during launch, in that case because the gyroscope motor speed was too low. The motion sensors would thus eliminate this failure mode.
Range Safety
The range safety system was also modified for the Mercury program. There would be a three-second delay between engine cutoff and activation of the destruct charges so as to give the LES time to pull the capsule to safety. The ASIS system could not terminate engine thrust for the first 30 seconds of flight in order to prevent a malfunctioning launch vehicle from coming down on or around the pad area; during this time only the Range Safety Officer could send a manual cutoff command.
Autopilot
The old-fashioned electromechanical autopilot on the Atlas (known as the “round” autopilot due to the shape of the containers its major components were housed in) was replaced by a solid-state model (the “square” autopilot) that was more compact and easier to service, but it would prove a serious headache to debug and man-rate. On Mercury-Atlas 1, the autopilot system functioned well until launch vehicle destruction a minute into the flight. On Mercury-Atlas 2, there was a fair bit of missile bending and propellant slosh. Mercury-Atlas 3 completely failed and had to be destroyed shortly after launch when the booster did not perform the pitch and roll maneuver. After this debacle, the programmer was recovered and examined. Several causes were proposed including contamination of pins in the programmer or perhaps a transient voltage. The autopilot was extensively redesigned, but Mercury-Atlas 4 still had high vibration levels for the first 20 seconds of launch which led to further modifications. Finally on Mercury-Atlas 5, the autopilot worked perfectly.
Antenna
The guidance antenna was modified to reduce signal interference.
LOX Boil-Off Valve
Mercury-Atlas vehicles utilized the boil-off valve from the C-series Atlas rather than the standard D-series valve for reliability and weight-saving reasons.
Combustion Sensors
Combustion instability was an important problem that needed to be fixed. Although it mostly only occurred in static firing tests of the MA-2 engines, three launches (Missiles 3D, 51D, and 48D) had demonstrated that unstable thrust in one engine could result in immediate, catastrophic failure of the entire missile as the engine backfired and ruptured, leading to a thrust section fire. On Missile 3D, this had occurred in flight after a propellant leak starved one booster engine of LOX and led to reduced, unstable thrust and engine failure. The other two launches suffered rough combustion at engine start, ending in explosions that severely damaged the launch stand. Thus, it was decided to install extra sensors in the engines to monitor combustion levels and the booster would also be held down on the pad for a few moments after ignition to ensure smooth thrust. The engines would also use a “wet start”, meaning that the propellants were injected into the combustion chamber prior to igniter activation as opposed to a “dry start” where the igniter was activated first, which would eliminate rough ignition (51D and 48D had both used dry starts). If the booster failed the check, it would be automatically shut down. Once again, these upgrades required testing on Atlas R&D flights. By late 1961, after a third missile (27E) had exploded on the pad from combustion instability, Convair developed a significantly upgraded propulsion system that featured baffled fuel injectors and a hypergolic igniter in place of the pyrotechnic method, but NASA was unwilling to jeopardize John Glenn’s upcoming flight with these untested modifications and so declined to have them installed in Mercury-Atlas 6’s booster. As such, that and Scott Carpenter’s flight on MA-7 used the old-style Atlas propulsion system and the new variant was not employed until Wally Schirra’s flight late in 1962.
Static testing of Rocketdyne engines had produced high-frequency combustion instability, in what was known as the “racetrack” effect where burning propellant would swirl around the injector head, eventually destroying it from shock waves. On the launches of Atlas 51D and 48D, the failures were caused by low-order rough combustion that ruptured the injector head and LOX dome, causing a thrust section fire that led to eventual complete loss of the missile. The exact reason for the back-to-back combustion instability failures on 51D and 48D was not determined with certainty, although several causes were proposed. This problem was resolved by installing baffles in the injector head to break up swirling propellant, at the expense of some performance as the baffles added additional weight reduced the number of injector holes that propellants were sprayed through. The lessons learned with the Atlas program later proved vital to the development of the much larger Saturn F-1 engine.
Electrical System
Added redundancy was made to the propulsion system electrical circuitry to ensure that SECO would occur on time and when commanded. The LOX fuel feed system received added wiring redundancy to ensure that the propellant valves would open in the proper sequence during engine start.
Tank Bulkhead
Mercury vehicles up to MA-6 had foam insulation in the intermediate bulkhead to prevent the super-chilled LOX from causing the RP-1 to freeze. During repairs to MA-6 prior to John Glenn’s flight, it was decided to remove the insulation for being unnecessary and an impediment during servicing of the boosters in the field. NASA sent out a memo to GD/A requesting that subsequent Mercury-Atlas vehicles not include bulkhead insulation.
LOX Turbopump
In early 1962, two static engine tests and one launch (Missile 11F) fell victim to LOX turbopump explosions caused by the impeller blades rubbing against the metal casing of the pump and creating a friction spark. This happened after over three years of Atlas flights without any turbopump issues and it was not clear why the rubbing occurred, but all episodes of this happened when the sustainer inlet valve was moving to the flight-ready “open” position and while running untested hardware modifications. A plastic liner was added to the LOX turbopump to prevent friction rubbing. In addition Atlas 113D, the booster used for Wally Schirra’s flight, was given a PFRT (Pre-Flight Readiness Test) to verify proper functionality of the propulsion system.
Pneumatic System
Mercury vehicles used a standard D-series Atlas pneumatic system, although studies were conducted over the cause of tank pressure fluctuation which was known to occur under certain payload conditions. These studies found that the helium regulator used on early D-series vehicles had a tendency to induce resonant vibration during launch, but several modifications to the pneumatic system had been made since then, including the use of a newer model regulator that did not produce this effect.
Propellant Utilization System
In the event that the guidance system failed to issue the discreet cutoff command to the sustainer engine and it burned to propellant depletion, there was the possibility of a LOX-rich shutdown which could result in damage to engine components from high temperatures. For safety reasons, the PU system was modified to increase the LOX flow to the sustainer engine ten seconds before SECO. This was to ensure that the LOX supply would be completely exhausted at SECO and prevent a LOX-rich shutdown.
Skin
After MA-1 was destroyed in-flight due to a structural failure, NASA began requesting that Convair deliver Atlases with thicker skin. Atlas 10D (as well as its backup vehicle 20D which was later used for the first Atlas-Able flight), the booster used for the Big Joe test in September 1959, had sported thick skin and verified that this was needed for the heavy Mercury capsule. Atlas 100D would be the first thick-skinned booster delivered while in the meantime, MA-2’s booster (67D) which was still a thin-skinned model, had to be equipped with a steel reinforcement band at the interface between the capsule and the booster. Under original plans, Atlas 77D was to have been the booster used for MA-3. It received its factory rollout inspection in September 1960, but shortly afterwards, the postflight findings for MA-1 came out which led to the thin-skinned 77D being recalled and replaced by 100D.
Guidance
The vernier solo phase, which would be used on ICBMs to fine-tune the missile velocity after sustainer cutoff, was eliminated from the guidance program in the interest of simplicity as well as improved performance and lift capacity. Since orbital flights required an extremely different flight path from missiles, the guidance antennas had to be completely redesigned to ensure maximum signal strength. The posigrade rocket motors on the top of the Atlas, designed to push the spent missile away from the warhead, were moved to the Mercury capsule itself. This also necessitated adding a fiberglass insulation shield to the LOX tank dome so it wouldn’t be ruptured by the rocket motors.
Engine Alignment
A common and normally harmless phenomenon on Atlas vehicles was the tendency of the booster to develop a slight roll in the first few seconds following liftoff due to the autopilot not kicking in yet. On a few flights however, the booster developed enough rolling motion to potentially trigger an abort condition if it had been a crewed launch. Although some roll was naturally imparted by the Atlas’s turbine exhaust, this could not account for the entire problem which instead had more to do with engine alignment. Acceptance data from the engine supplier (Rocketdyne) showed that a group of 81 engines had an average roll movement in the same direction of approximately the same magnitude as that experienced in flight. Although the acceptance test-stand and flight-experience data on individual engines did not correlate, it was determined that offsetting the alignment of the booster engines could counteract this roll motion and minimize the roll tendency at liftoff. After Schirra’s Mercury flight did experience momentary roll problems early in the launch, the change was incorporated into Gordon Cooper’s booster on MA-9.
Launches
Nine LV-3Bs were launched, two on uncrewed suborbital test flights, three on uncrewed orbital test flights, and four with crewed Mercury spacecraft. Atlas LV-3B launches were conducted from Launch Complex 14 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.
It first flew on July 29, 1960, conducting the suborbital Mercury-Atlas 1 test flight. The rocket suffered a structural failure shortly after launch, and as a result failed to place the spacecraft onto its intended trajectory. In addition to the maiden flight, the first orbital launch, Mercury-Atlas 3 also failed. This failure was due to a problem with the guidance system failing to execute pitch and roll commands, necessitating that the Range Safety Officer destroy the vehicle. The spacecraft separated by means of its launch escape system and was recovered 1.8 kilometers (1.1 mi) from the launch pad.
A further series of Mercury launches was planned, which would have used additional LV-3Bs; however these flights were canceled after the success of the initial Mercury missions. The last LV-3B launch was conducted on 15 May 1963, for the launch of Mercury-Atlas 9. NASA originally planned to use leftover LV-3B vehicles to launch Gemini-Agena Target Vehicles, however an increase in funding during 1964 meant that the agency could afford to buy brand-new Atlas SLV-3 vehicles instead, so the idea was scrapped.
Mercury-Atlas Vehicles Built and Eventual Disposition
•10D—Launched Big Joe 9/14/59
•20D—Backup vehicle for Big Joe. Reassigned to Atlas-Able program and launched 11/26/59.
•50D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 1 7/29/60
•67D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 2 2/21/61
•77D—Original launch vehicle for Mercury-Atlas 3, replaced by Atlas 100D after postflight findings from Mercury-Atlas 1
•88D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 4 9/13/61
•93D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 5 11/29/61
•100D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 3 4/25/61
•103D—Cancelled
•107D—Launched Aurora 7 (Mercury-Atlas 7) 5/24/62
•109D—Launched Friendship 7 (Mercury-Atlas 6) 2/21/62
•113D—Launched Sigma 7 (Mercury-Atlas 8) 10/3/62
•130D—Launched Faith 7 (Mercury-Atlas 9) 5/15/63
•144D—Cancelled, was planned launch vehicle for Mercury-Atlas 10
•152D—Cancelled
•167D—Cancelled
INSTRUCTIONS AVAILABLE FOR P558 SUPERDUTY - MULTIPLE CONFIGURATIONS
On September 24, 2015, Ford unveiled the 2017 Ford Super Duty line at the 2015 State Fair of Texas. he frame is made from 95% high strength steel and the body (like the contemporary F-150) is made from 6000 series aluminum alloy. For the first time since 1999, both the Super Duty and F-150 lines are constructed using the same cab.
For 2017 production, the Super Duty line shares its powertrain lineup with its 2016 predecessor: a 6.2L gasoline V8, 6.8L V10 (F-450 and above), with a 6.7L diesel V8 available in all versions. The 6.2L gasoline V8 engine remains at 385 hp but torque rises from 405 lb-ft to 430 lb-ft. Additionally, the gasoline V8 produces its max torque at over 700 rpm less than the previous 405 lb-ft engine. The 6.7L diesel engine also remains at the same 440 hp (323 kW) but torque increases from 860 lb-ft upwards to 925 lb-ft.
The 2020 Super Duty debuted at the 2019 Chicago Auto Show. It features a revised grille and tailgate design, new wheel options, and higher-quality interior materials for the Limited trim. A new 7.3-liter gasoline engine is available. Nicknamed "Godzilla", it makes 430 horsepower and 475 lb-ft of torque.
Cab configurations continue to be 2-Door Regular Cab, 4-Door Super Cab, and 4-Door Super Crew Cab, with Short Box (6' 9") and Long Box (8') bed lengths. The truck will be available in F-250, F-350, and F-450 pickup truck models, and F-350, F-450, and F-550 chassis cab models. All will be available in both 4X2 and 4X4 configurations. The F-350 will be the only model available in either Single Rear Wheel (SRW) or Dual Rear Wheel (DRW) configurations, the F-450 and F-550 will only be available in a Dual Rear Wheel (DRW) configuration, and the F-250 will only be available in a Single Rear Wheel configuration.
The baseline configuration of the Oshkart SMTV (Scalable Medium Tactical Vehicle) family, the Mk601A is the standard two-door 6x6 cargo hauler configuration.
Features include opening doors and top hatch, a cab capable of seating 2 minifigs with body armor and headgear, foldable gunner’s seat, turning front wheels, center-pivoting rear axles, and spare tire with lift arm.
A special thanks needs to be given to Abdullah750Pakistan. This originally started as a project to clean up and make a buildable and more minifig-friendly version of his Ural 63708. As you can see though, it’s turned into a project to create a series of trucks in the same vein of the Oshkosh MTVR, Navistar 7000 MV, and Ural 63704-0010 families.
As with my other builds, all parts used in this are real production pieces.
If you're interested in this build, a file can be found here:
The baseline configuration of the Oshkart SMTV (Scalable Medium Tactical Vehicle) family, the Mk601A is the standard two-door 6x6 cargo hauler configuration.
Features include opening doors and top hatch, a cab capable of seating 2 minifigs with body armor and headgear, foldable gunner’s seat, turning front wheels, center-pivoting rear axles, and spare tire with lift arm.
A special thanks needs to be given to Abdullah750Pakistan. This originally started as a project to clean up and make a buildable and more minifig-friendly version of his Ural 63708. As you can see though, it’s turned into a project to create a series of trucks in the same vein of the Oshkosh MTVR, Navistar 7000 MV, and Ural 63704-0010 families.
As with my other builds, all parts used in this are real production pieces.
If you're interested in this build, a file can be found here:
Image Disclaimer - Please note that all of the images shown are for illustrative purposes only. The rooms pictured are not necessarily typical of the accommodation available at Student Apartments, which can vary in terms of size, configuration, and finish.
Keep designs underwent a significant change in the 12th century when square configurations gave way to more rounded forms. But at Chateau Gaillard, Richard the Lionheart’s donjon is in a shape of its own. Its exterior walls are sloped outward. At the front they join and project forward at a sharp angle. This unique form makes it more resistant to projectiles. On the opposite side, the keep backs onto a sheer cliff, making any approach from this side virtually impossible. Inside, Richard I’s last line of defence is a mere eight metres in diameter. The current point of entry is believed to date from a later period, as the original door would have almost certainly been positioned above ground and reached by a ladder or stairway. With no evidence of a fireplace, well, or latrine, it appears that this particular keep was built exclusively for defence.
Battle Castle is an action documentary series starring Dan Snow that is now airing on History Television and is scheduled to premiere on Discovery Knowledge in the UK in Spring 2012 and on various BBC-affiliated channels in the near future.
For the latest air dates, Like us on Facebook (www.battlecastle.com/facebook) or follow us on Twitter (www.twitter.com/battlecastle)
This show brings to life mighty medieval fortifications and the epic sieges they resist: clashes that defy the limits of military technology, turn empires to dust, and transform mortals into legends.
Website: www.battlecastle.tv/
Twitter: www.twitter.com/battlecastle
YouTube: www.youtube.com/battlecastle
Flickr: www.flicker.com/battlecastle
Facebook: www.facebook.com/battlecastle
Castles conjure thoughts of romantic tales, but make no mistake, they are built for war.
Dover: Prince Louis' key to England. Malaga: the Granadans final stronghold. And Crac des Chevaliers: Crown Jewel of Crusader castles. Through dynamic location footage and immersive visual effects, Battle Castle reveals a bloody history of this epic medieval arms race.
As siege weapons and technology become more ruthless, the men who design and built these castles reply ... or perish. Follow host Dan Snow as he explores the military engineering behind these medieval megastructures and the legendary battles that became testaments to their might.
Each episode will climax in the ultimate test of the castle's military engineering -- a siege that will change the course of history. Which castles will be conquered and which will prevail? You'll have to watch to find out.
But the journey doesn't end there --in fact, it's just beginning. Battle Castle extends into a multi-platform quest, taking us deep into the secret world of medieval warfare and strategy. Become the ultimate 'Castle Master'. Stay tuned for more on the Battle Castle experience.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Supermarine Spitfire is a British single-seat fighter aircraft that was used by the Royal Air Force and many other Allied countries during and after the Second World War. The Spitfire was built in many variants, using several wing configurations, and was produced in greater numbers than any other British aircraft.
The Spitfire was designed as a short-range, high-performance interceptor aircraft by R. J. Mitchell, chief designer at Supermarine Aviation Works (which operated as a subsidiary of Vickers-Armstrong from 1928). In accordance with its role as an interceptor, Mitchell designed the Spitfire's distinctive elliptical wing to have the thinnest possible cross-section; this thin wing enabled the Spitfire to have a higher top speed than several contemporary fighters, including the Hawker Hurricane.
It was the only British fighter to be in continuous production throughout World War II, and remained in service with several air forces around the world for several years. One of its post-war operators was the Lebanese Air Force, or Al Quwwat al-Jawwiya al-Lubnaniyya (لقوات الجوية اللبنانية).
The Lebanese Air Force was established in 1949 under the command of then-Lieutenant Colonel Emile Boustany who later became commander of the army. Soon after its establishment, a number of planes were donated by the British, French, and Italian governments, with additional planes donated by Britain and Italy later that same year.
Britain donated 4 Percival Prentices, 2 World War II-era Percival Proctors and seven trpocailized Supermarine Spitfires (six Mk. XVIe and one TR.8 two-seater), while Italy donated 4 Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 bombers which were mainly used for transportation.
The Mk XVI Spitfire was a WWII design, and the last variant powered by a Merlin engine and based on the original, sleek fuselage. It was basically the same as the Mk IX, except for the engine, a Merlin 266. The Merlin 266 was the Merlin 66 and was built under licence in the USA by the Packard Motor Company. The "2" was added as a prefix in order to avoid confusion with the engines, as they required different tooling.
All Mk XVI aircraft produced (a total of 1,054 Mk XVIs left Castle Bromwich) were of the Low-Altitude Fighter (LF) variety. This was not determined by the length of the wings (clipped wings were fitted to most LF Spitfires), but by the engine, which had been optimised for low-altitude operation. All production Mk XVIs had clipped wings for low altitude work and were fitted with the rear fuselage fuel tanks with a combined capacity of 75 gal. Many XVIs featured cut-down rear fuselages with bubble canopies. On these aircraft the rear fuselage tank capacity was limited to 66 gal.
Because of a slightly taller intercooler and rearranged accessories on the Packard Merlins a new, bulged upper cowling was introduced, a detail that also appeared on late production IXs. For the service in the Middel East region the Lebanese machines received dust filters which considerably changed the aircraft's silhouette.
Armament consisted of two 20 mm Hispano II cannons - each with 120 rpg - and two 0.50 calibre Browning machine guns - each with 250 rpg. 1 × 500 lb (227 kg) bomb could be carried underneath the centre rack, and 1 × 250 lb (114 kg) bomb could be slung under each wing. As a special feature, the wing hardpoints of the Lebanese Spitfires were "wet" so that slipper tanks with 24 gal. each could be carried, compensating for the reduces rear fuselage tank due to the bubble canopy's lowered dorsal spine.
The Lebanese Spitfires only saw a short service, since in 1953, jet fighters were introduced when 16 de Havilland Vampire jets were received, and the first Hawker Hunters arrived in 1959, which replaced the obsolete Spitfires. This initial Hunter batch was followed by more Hunters through 1977.
In 1968, 12 Mirage IIIELs were delivered from France but were grounded in the late 1970s due to lack of funds. In 2000, the grounded Mirages were sold to Pakistan, and four Hunters were even revived in 2008 and served until 2014.
General characteristics:
Crew: one pilot
Length: 29 ft 11 in (9.12 m)
Wingspan: 36 ft 10 in (11.23 m)
Height: 11 ft 5 in (3.86 m)
Wing area: 242.1 ft2 (22.48 m2)
Airfoil: NACA 2209.4(tip)
Empty weight: 5,065 lb (2,297 kg)
Loaded weight: 6,622 lb (3,000 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 6,700 lb (3,039 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Rolls-Royce Merlin 60 supercharged V12 engine,
rated at 1.470 hp (1.096 kW) at 9.250 ft (2.820 m)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 370 mph, (322 kn, 595 km/h)
Combat radius: 410 nmi (470 mi, 760 km)
Ferry range: 991 nmi (1,135 mi, 1,827 km)
Service ceiling: 36,500 ft (11,125 m)
Rate of climb: 2,600 ft/min (13.2 m/s)
Wing loading: 27.35 lb/ft2 (133.5 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.22 hp/lb (0.36 kW/kg)
Armament:
2x 20mm Hispano Mk II cannon (120 RPG)
2x .5 in Browning machine guns (250 RPG)
Three hardpoints (1 ventral, 1 under each outer wing) for up to 1.000 lb (454 kg).
The kit and its assembly:
This whif is based on a simple idea: how did Lebanon's Air Force start? Small countries make a good whif playground, and I guess that nobody has the Lebanon on his/her list...?
Another factor was that I had some Austrian roundels left in store that could, with a green dot, easily be turned into Lebanese markings. So the theme was quickly settled, but the details take some preparation time, so the idea lingered for some time.
After some legwork I deemed a simple Spitfire with a dust filter worthy as an initial aircraft, and the respective Hobby Boss kit of a Spitfire Mk. VB in the stash came handy.
But somehow this was a bit dull, and at the inception of the Lebanon Air Force there were better option available than an early Mk. V. I still wanted a sleek, Merlin-powered Spitfire variant, though, and eventually settled for the Mk. XVI - with its clipped wings and the bubble canopy it has a very distinctive look.
When a "1 Week group Build" at whatifmodelers.com in the Easter Week 2015 was announced, I took this occassion to build the Lebanese Spitfire.
By that time I already had a basis kit at hand (Heller's Spitfire XVI) as well as some donation parts and decals.
Work was strightforward, the Heller kit was built almost OOB. It's a rather old model kit, with raised panel lines, but good detail. The material is thin, so the built item lacks some structural stability! On the other side, this makes some minor mods really easy: I lowered the flaps and moved the tail rudders slightly off of neutral position. I also opened the cockpit "door" on the left side for later static display, even though the cockpit itself was left OOB. It's a bit "flat", but for the kit's age it's pretty good, and the injected canopy is crystal clear and fits perfectly.
I had some major woes concerning the fit for the forward fuselage, and even more when I tried to mate wings and fuselage: there was a 1mm gap(!) on both sides that had to be bridged with putty, and the thin and flexible material did help much...
Other mods concern the propeller (added a styrene tube and a metal axis for free spin), the radiators (these are molded into the lower wings - sounds horrible, but is made very well and thin, I just added some foamed styrene inside as protective mesh because OOB there's just a blank "box" inside) and the kit received a dust filter - a resin piece taken from a Pavla conversion set for Hawker Hurricanes.
Painting and markings:
While a donated RAF Spitfire would certainly have carried a desert paint scheme in Dark Earth/Mid Stone/Azure Blue or a late WWII Dark Green/Ocean Grey/Light Sea Grey livery I settled for something more individual and effective for the rugged Levantine terrain.
In this case I went for the rarely used RAF 'Tropical Scheme' in Mid Stone/Dark Green from above and with Mediterrenean Blue undersides.
The pattern itself is standard RAF, the upper cammo taken down onto the dust filter's flanks was taken over from RAAF Spitfires during WWII (RAF aircraft would carry a higher waterline, with the filter painted completely in the lower surface's tone). Basic paints are RAF Dark Green from Modelmaster and Humbrol 84 (RAF Mid Stone) - rather authentic. But I used Humbrol 87 (Steel Grey) for the undersides - it's rather intense and has a greenish hue, and by far not as dark as the typical RAF Azure Blue or PRU Blue.
Interior surfaces were painted in RAF Cockpit Green (Modelmaster Authentic), while the landing gear and its wells were kept in Aluminum Dope (Humbrol 56).
Decals/markings were puzzled together and improvised. The Lebanese roundels are actually Austrian national markings into which a dark green dot has ben added manually... the fin flash and the roman/arabic codes come from an Xtradecal aftermarket sheet.
Beyond these basic markings I did not add anything flashy - in 1951 things were rather simple,
The kit received a light shading and some dry painting with light grey, plus a light black ink wash. Soot/exhaust stains were created with grinded graphite and around the engine some leaked oil was added with Tamiya's "Smoke", and everything was sealed under a coat of matt acrylic varnish.
I'll admit it's not a spectacular whif, and overall rather simple concerning build and painting. But a proud addition to whatifmodelers.com's "! Week Group Build", even though this was already finished in just three days from sprues to beauty pics...
City Centre 1 (to be completed in 2018) will include 5 000m2 of retail space including convenience shops. A residential component consisting of approximately 740 apartments will feature eleven different configurations of one to three bedroom units and penthouses.
Upper West Side, Manhattan, New York City, New York, United States
INTRODUCTION
This small, nearly block-long historic district achieves its special quality from a number of factors.
(1) It is a secluded enclave on the Upper West Side, set apart from the pattern of through-streets by its unique development history. The street has always been a cul-de-sac since railroad tracks, shielded by a wall, occupy the land immediately to the west.
(2) The district was largely developed over the course of three years (1893-96) with 33 rowhouses, built in six groups designed by four architectural firms, all in variations of the Renaissance Revival style. Each group was designed as a harmonious unit, but individual houses vary in their details. Since four of the groups were designed by two architectural firms, even further unity is created. Within each group, the houses are paired, or a larger rhythm is created through the window placement and configuration, use of bowed and flat facades, and variations in stoops and porticoes.
A slightly later town house from 1903-04 stands at No. 305 on the north side of the street. This is compatible with the rows in style, form, and details. The six-story brick apartment building at No. 319-325 was built in 1924 on a lot that was still vacant prior to construction.
(3) The historic district is given further distinction by the use of harmonious facade materials (brownstone on the south side, brick, stone and terra cotta on the north side), classically-inspired details, uniform cornice heights, and the use of such elements as stoops, bows, and oriels which create a sense of depth on the facades.
(4) Alterations to the exteriors of the houses have been minimal. Thus the historic character of the district is reinforced, and the sense of place even further enhanced.
Historical Background
Although its history can be traced as far back as the seventeenth century, the Upper West Side, including the section of West 71st Street included in the West 71st Street Historic District, remained largely undeveloped until the 1880s. Prior to its urbanization the area was known as Bloomingdale (or "Bloemendael" by the early Dutch settlers) in recollection of a flower-growing region of Holland.
In the early eighteenth century, Bloomingdale Road was opened through the area, following the course of an old Indian trail, and provided the main link to the city at the southern tip of Manhattan Island. Gradually, some wealthy New Yorkers established country seats in the hinterlands around the Bloomingdale Road. While the area remained rural, by the early nineteenth century four small villages had developed in Bloomingdale, including Harsenville, a hamlet centered around the present West 70th Street and Broadway.
The Upper West Side was included in the Randel Survey (Commissioners' Map) of 1811 which planned a uniform grid of broad avenues and narrow cross streets to be imposed upon the rolling hills of Manhattan. Many years elapsed, however, before most streets in rural Bloomingdale were actually laid out. During this time New York City was rapidly growing northward, but development was largely concentrated on the East Side, following the march uptown of New York's wealthy citizens and the city's transit lines. The creation of Central Park (a designated New York City Scenic landmark), begun in 1857, spurred growth in areas around the Park's perimeter, setting off the first wave of real estate speculation on the Upper West Side (in this case, limited to Central Park West).
Several civic improvements also contributed to the eventual development of the Upper West Side. In 1864 the Eighth Avenue horse car line was extended to 84th Street. Previously the only transit facility was a stage line along Bloomingdale Road. The Commissioners of Central Park were authorized to complete the laying out of streets west of Central Park in 1865. Bloomingdale Road (renamed the Boulevard and later Broadway) was widened in 1868-71 and received central, planted malls from 59th to 155th Streets. The biggest boost to development of the area west of Broadway was the creation, between 1876 and 1900, of Riverside Park and Drive north of 72nd Street, near the Hudson River (a designated New York City Scenic landmark). Construction in the area was further stimulated by the completion of the Ninth Avenue Elevated Railroad in 1879.
A wave of real estate speculation following the Civil War was followed by the financial Panic of 1873, which led to a period of stagnation in the building trades. This, along with high real estate prices and delays in civic improvements, again slewed development of the Upper West Side. Further delays were caused by a lack of agreement among developers as to the type of buildings to be constructed here. Although Central Park West and Riverside Drive were envisioned as residential avenues for the wealthy, on a par with Fifth Avenue, there was no consensus about the future character of the rest of the area.
The sections around the elevated stations at 72nd, 81st, 93rd and 104th Streets did attract builders, but there were few other indicators to guide investors in determining the nature of buildings most profitable to erect.
Edward Clark, president of the Singer Sewing Machine Co., was the first to make major investments on the Upper West Side. Hie Dakota (1880-84, Henry J. Hardenbergh, a designated New York City landmark), an early luxury apartment house, and Clark's two speculative rows at Nos. 101-151 and Nos. 13-67 West 73rd Street (Nos. 15A-19 and Nos. 41-67 West 73rd Street are in the Central Park West-West 73rd-74th Street Historic District) proved to be superb investments and drew much public attention to the area.
By 1885 the Upper West Side had emerged as the city's area of most intense speculation. Developers already at work there undertook new and larger projects and were joined by nearly all of the larger builders in the city. Buildings erected on the Upper West Side new sold readily. In 1886, the The New York Times wrote:
The west side of the city presents just new a scene of building activity such as was never before witnessed in that section... thousands of carpenters and masons are engaged in rearing substantial buildings ...
Promotional brochures and publicity in the press began eventually to focus attention on the territory west of the Boulevard. In 1888 the West End Association published a pamphlet entitled "West End Avenue: Riverside Park and the City of New York" which lauded the virtues of West End Avenue and environs as an ideal residential area. In August, 1890, the New York Herald ran a series of editorials and articles extolling the advantages of the Upper West Side:
The district to the east of Riverside Park as far as Central Park is likely, or rather, sure to became within the next twenty years, perhaps the location of the most beautiful residences in the world. The advantages of pure air arid beautiful surroundings, glimpses of New Jersey Hills at the end of each street, with the glitter of the Hudson between; the nearness of parks and the accessibility of the district will be insurmountable factors in popularity.
By the early 1890s, the area of the West 70s and 80s had acquired row houses and began to establish itself as a fashionable neighborhood. Development occurred more rapidly on the streets between the Boulevard and Central Park than on the streets to the west of the Boulevard due, undoubtedly, to two factors: first, the land west of the Boulevard was less accessible to street cars and to the Ninth Avenue El; and second, land flanking Riverside Drive, Central Park West, and, to some degree, West End Avenue, was considered to be prime property. The notion that New York's social elite and wealthy citizens would abandon Fifth Avenue and erect palatial mansions along these avenues caused the value of adjacent land to remain consistently higher than elsewhere on the Upper West Side and discouraged development for a longer period.
The area of the West 71st Street Historic District fits this pattern of development. Originally part of the farm of Jacob Harsen, the man for whom Harsenville was named, this land then passed to his son, whose executors plotted and conveyed the property, beginning in 1873. The presence of the small hamlet, as well as the proximity to the 72nd Street step on the elevated transit line, led to the early development of the adjacent area.
Seventy-first Street from Central Park West to Broadway was opened in 1850, while the section west of Broadway was opened in 1865. Rowhouses were constructed on the more easterly sections of 71st Street before 1885, while the blockfronts west of West End Avenue remained vacant until the last decade of the nineteenth century. From the beginning, this section of West 71st Street was intended to be a cul-de-sac, since railroad tracks occupied the land immediately to the west.
Despite the Panic of 1893, this section of West 71st Street began to be developed during that economically depressed year. Nearly all of the buildings in this district, in fact, were constructed during the following three years. The street was primarily built up by speculators who bought groups of lots and constructed six rows of architecturally harmonious houses. In this district, the first rowhouse groups to be constructed were those on the south side of the street designed by John C. Bume.
In 1893, he began the group at Nos. 308-320 West 71st Street (No. 308 is no longer extant) for the busy West Side developer John Kehoe. ^ A second Burne group, Nos. 328-340, followed a few months later, for two other developers, Josiah S. Lindsay and Amund Johnson. In 1894, Arthur J. Horgan designed houses for the last three available lots on the south side of the street, Nos. 322-326, for the developer William Bradley. In the same year, Horgan's firm, Horgan & Slattery, began to build on the north side of the street, Nos. 329-343, for its own development company.
The group at Nos. 307-319 followed shortly after, in 1895, designed by Frederick Friend for Caroline Hartwell. The next year Neville & Bagge filled in four lots at No. 345-351 West 71st Street (No. 345 is no longer extant) for builder William Casey. By 1900, only two open areas were left in the district. In 1903-04, a large, individual speculative town house, designed by George Keister, was built for James O'Brien at No. 305. The last building constructed in the district is a six-story apartment house dating from 1924, at No. 319-325 West 71st Street, designed by the architectural firm of Goldner & Goldner. The two lots on which this building was constructed had been bought by Mary Goodsell in 1892, but remained vacant until after her heirs sold it for development in 1922.3 The practice of speculators holding undeveloped property for a number of years was not unusual at this time, since land values continued to rise rapidly.
At the northwestern corner is the rear portion of the Chatsworth (a designated New York City Landmark), while across the street is another apartment house, the Riverside Studios.
The eastern end of the street originally accommodated large individual town houses. In a typical developmental pattern, these were later redeveloped with apartment buildings which face onto West End Avenue.
This small, nearly block-long historic district remains essentially as it was when completed more than sixty years ago. The rowhouses, which were constructed for single-family occupancy, have been converted to multi-family use. A single house, No. 345 West 71st Street, was demolished in 1946, leaving a vacant lot. Many of the houses, after a period of neglect, have been refurbished, with minimal loss of decorative detail. The West 71st Street Historic District retains its uniqueness due to many factors. Its unusual situation as a non-through street, as well as the similarity of the construction history, gives unity and cohesiveness to the district.
The dates of construction, with most of the houses built within three years of each other, the similar speculative purposes of the builders, the same architectural context, and the minimal changes which have occurred in the district since its original development, work together to create an area which retains a distinct sense of place and an air of being set apart from the rest of the bustling city around it.
Architectural Background
The West 71st Street Historic District, located on portions of the two blockfronts west of West End Avenue, contains thirty-three rowhouses built in six groups on speculation from 1893 to 1896, during the period of most intense development of the Upper West Side. In addition, one individually designed town house (1903-04) and one small apartment building (1924) complete this compact district.
Most of the developers who helped create this street were also active elsewhere on the Upper West Side. John Kehoe, Lindsay & Johnson, and Horgan & Slattery were especially well known, while the others were William Bradley, William Casey, Caroline Hartwell and James O'Brien. The architects of these buildings included: Horgan & Slattery, known for their many institutional as well as residential designs; John c. Bume and Neville & Bagge, whose works can be found throughout Manhattan; Frederick Friend; George Keister, architect of numerous theaters as well as houses; and the firm of Goldner & Goldner which was active in multi-family housing design.
This district reflects the late nineteenth-century development patterns on the Upper West Side where the initial construction was speculatively-built groups of three- and four-story, single-family rowhouses and town houses. Each group was designed by the architect as a harmonious unit with individuality in the separate buildings. When, as seen on West 71st Street, an architect designed several groups, the area was given a further overall sense of unity. Within this district, all the houses except No. 305 were designed in the context of a group, ranging in number from three to eight houses.
Stylistically, the houses in this district, all reflect the character and influence of the Beaux-Arts movement in architecture. This type of design, inspired by the principles of the French Ecole des Beaux-Arts and the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago, turned to interpretations of Renaissance prototypes (among others) in a reaction to the eccentricities of the High Victorian period and in a search for an architecture characterized by order and sobriety. These designs were first employed by leading architects such as McKim, Mead & White and Richard Morris Hunt, in their commissions for mansions for the wealthy, particularly, in New York, along Fifth Avenue. Their influence soon spread to other architects and developers as Italian, French and English Renaissance prototypes were used for town houses for the upper and middle classes to symbolically express their prestige and affluence.
These houses on West 71st Street display the free and eclectic use of Renaissance-inspired forms and details, mixed with other elements, adapted to the rowhouse type, as found often on houses built in the 1890s. Architects began by continuing an earlier convention of losing brownstone facades, but later employed Roman brick of various lighter shades, often mixed with stone and terra-cotta trim. Classically-inspired details take the form of putty, shields, wreaths and swirling foliage. Hie extensive use of such elegant Renaissance designs, with their regular rhythms of bays, oriels, and cornices and contrasts of terra-cotta ornamentation, brick and stone, imparts an architectural distinctiveness to this small district. Despite some variation in styles, the houses in this district maintain a compatible scale, materials and similarity of Renaissance details, which bring the two sides of the street together to create a sense of harmony for the entire district.
The groups on the south side of the street, the first to be constructed in the district, have more variation in the details within each group than those on the north side. Their brownstone facades and raised basements with high stoops are reflective of their slightly earlier dates of construction. The Burne group at Nos. 310-320 West 71st Street shews an overall unity of proportions and many repetitions of design elements, but no two houses share the exact design. Carved foliate motifs, moldings and other classical elements such as urns and putti reflect the Renaissance derivation of these designs.
In Burne's second group in the district, Nos. 328-340, the architect limited himself to two designs, repeated in a pattern of ABBAABB among the seven houses. Panels of foliate ornament and modillioned cornices reflect Renaissance influence, while the round-arched windows on the "A" design are derived from Romanesque prototypes. The single and double height oriels, as well as the paired porticoes provide surface variation and create a sense of movement throughout this group of houses. The small group at Nos. 322-326, designed by Arthur Horgan, links these two rows on the south side of the street.
Faced with the same material, retaining the same cornice and sill heights, this group combines Renaissance-inspired ornament in the form of swags, wreaths, foliate carving and engaged columns, with Romanesque forms such as round-arched windows with hood moldings. Rhythm and variety cure created by the rounded and angled second-story oriels, while the ABA pattern creates a sense of unity within the group.
The groups on the north side of the street are slightly later, with more variety of materials and styles among groups. In spite of this variation, the rows maintain a sense of harmony, with the same cornice lines and relationship to the street, due to the minimal stoops and areaways. Horgan & Slattery built the first group on this side of the street, at Nos. 329-343. These houses show the influence of the Venetian Renaissance in the grouping of the windows and the ornate terra-cotta ornamentation which contrasts vividly with the light brick facades.
Repeating two designs among the seven houses in a pattern of ABBABBBA, this group has an extraordinary richness of texture and details. The second group to be constructed on this side of the street was that at Nos. 307-317. This group of six brick and limestone houses by Frederick Friend is much more restrained, with simple, classically-inspired details such as pilasters and fleur de lys, Greek key and egg-and-dart moldings. The unity of the group is enhanced by the continuous stone base, the two flat-facade end houses which project slightly to enframe the row, and the common materials and decorative patterns, such as the pressed metal used on the top story and cornice.
The final group to be constructed on the north side of the street was that at Nos. 345-351 (No. 345 has been demolished), designed by Neville & Bagge. Their red brick and limestone facades show numerous Renaissance-inspired design elements, including Ionic pilasters between the windows and balustraded porticos resting on Ionic columns. The harmony of the group is emphasized by the repetition of design elements and the continuous cornice, while the simple facades are given depth by the paired stoops and porticos. The projecting bay of No. 351 serves as a finishing element for this group as well as for all the rows in the district.
The only house within the district not built as part of a group is also the last house constructed here. No. 305 was built in 1903-04 from the designs of George Keister. Keister created a wide, brick-front town house with elegant, Renaissance-inspired ornamentation such as wrought-iron balconets at the parlor story level, stone keystones, ornate stone pediments above the third-story windows, and brick banding at the top story. Although the ground level has been altered, the rest of the building is intact.
The apartment building at No. 319-325, constructed in 1924 on a lot which had remained vacant until that time, harmonizes with the houses of the district in its scale and materials. Built by the firm of Goldner & Goldner, it is a simple, six-story brick structure with Romanesque forms apparent in the corbel table above the first story and in the round arches which provide a visual cap at the top of the building. It is a functionally-designed structure, representative of the small apartment buildings which sometimes replaced the original rowhouses on some side streets of the Upper West Side in the period between the wars.
Alterations to the exteriors of the houses in this district have been minimal. Five houses on the south side of the street have had their stoops removed and entrances established at the ground level, changes often made as part of the conversion of the buildings from single-family to multi-family use. One building had a dormered mansard roof added above the cornice, in 1905. Several of the original entranceways have been simplified and some have had ornament removed. All of the facades have been painted. On the north side of the street, a vacant lot now stands where one building was demolished (No. 345), while its neighbor had part of its stoop removed. There has been some rearrangement of the entranceways on a few buildings. Some windows have been changed but many originals still exist.
This small historic district is a distinctive area, containing groups of architecturally harmonious houses built in the Renaissance Revival style, developed primarily near the end of the nineteenth century. The quiet cul-de-sac and the buildings which retain their original style and character help set this historic district apart as a unique area of Manhattan with a special character and sense of place.
- From the 1989 NYCLPC Historic District Designation Report
Keep designs underwent a significant change in the 12th century when square configurations gave way to more rounded forms. But at Chateau Gaillard, Richard the Lionheart’s donjon is in a shape of its own. Its exterior walls are sloped outward. At the front they join and project forward at a sharp angle. This unique form makes it more resistant to projectiles. On the opposite side, the keep backs onto a sheer cliff, making any approach from this side virtually impossible. Inside, Richard I’s last line of defence is a mere eight metres in diameter. The current point of entry is believed to date from a later period, as the original door would have almost certainly been positioned above ground and reached by a ladder or stairway. With no evidence of a fireplace, well, or latrine, it appears that this particular keep was built exclusively for defence.
Battle Castle is an action documentary series starring Dan Snow that is now airing on History Television and is scheduled to premiere on Discovery Knowledge in the UK in Spring 2012 and on various BBC-affiliated channels in the near future.
For the latest air dates, Like us on Facebook (www.battlecastle.com/facebook) or follow us on Twitter (www.twitter.com/battlecastle)
This show brings to life mighty medieval fortifications and the epic sieges they resist: clashes that defy the limits of military technology, turn empires to dust, and transform mortals into legends.
Website: www.battlecastle.tv/
Twitter: www.twitter.com/battlecastle
YouTube: www.youtube.com/battlecastle
Flickr: www.flicker.com/battlecastle
Facebook: www.facebook.com/battlecastle
Castles conjure thoughts of romantic tales, but make no mistake, they are built for war.
Dover: Prince Louis' key to England. Malaga: the Granadans final stronghold. And Crac des Chevaliers: Crown Jewel of Crusader castles. Through dynamic location footage and immersive visual effects, Battle Castle reveals a bloody history of this epic medieval arms race.
As siege weapons and technology become more ruthless, the men who design and built these castles reply ... or perish. Follow host Dan Snow as he explores the military engineering behind these medieval megastructures and the legendary battles that became testaments to their might.
Each episode will climax in the ultimate test of the castle's military engineering -- a siege that will change the course of history. Which castles will be conquered and which will prevail? You'll have to watch to find out.
But the journey doesn't end there --in fact, it's just beginning. Battle Castle extends into a multi-platform quest, taking us deep into the secret world of medieval warfare and strategy. Become the ultimate 'Castle Master'. Stay tuned for more on the Battle Castle experience.
An Atlas-D rocket in Mercury-Atlas Configuration is on display at Kennedy Space Center.
Atlas LV-3B
The Atlas LV-3B, Atlas D Mercury Launch Vehicle or Mercury-Atlas Launch Vehicle, was a human-rated expendable launch system used as part of the United States Project Mercury to send astronauts into low Earth orbit. Manufactured by American aircraft manufacturing company Convair, it was derived from the SM-65D Atlas missile, and was a member of the Atlas family of rockets.
The Atlas D missile was the natural choice for Project Mercury since it was the only launch vehicle in the US arsenal that could put the spacecraft into orbit and also had a large number of flights to gather data from. But its reliability was far from perfect and Atlas launches ending in explosions were an all-too common sight at Cape Canaveral. Thus, significant steps had to be taken to human-rate the missile and make it safe and reliable unless NASA wished to spend several years developing a dedicated launch vehicle for crewed programs or else wait for the next-generation Titan II ICBM to become operational. Atlas’s stage-and-a-half configuration was seen as somewhat preferable to the two stage Titan in that all engines were ignited at liftoff, making it easier to test for hardware problems during prelaunch checks.
Shortly after being chosen for the program in early 1959, the Mercury astronauts were taken to watch the second D-series Atlas test, which exploded a minute into launch. This was the fifth straight complete or partial Atlas failure and the booster was at this point nowhere near reliable enough to carry a nuclear warhead or an uncrewed satellite, let alone a human passenger. Plans to human-rate Atlas were effectively still on the drawing board and Convair estimated that 75% reliability would be achieved by early 1961 and 85% reliability by the end of the year.
•General Specifications:
oFunction: Crewed Expendable Launch System
oManufacturer: Convair
oCountry of Origin: United States
•Size:
oHeight: 28.7 meters (94.3 ft)
oDiameter: 3.0 meters (10.0 ft); Width Over Boost Fairing: 4.9 meters (16 ft)
oMass: 120,000 kilograms (260,000 lb)
oStages: 1½
•Capacity:
oPayload to LEO: 1,360 kilograms (3,000 lb)
•Launch History:
oStatus: Retired
oLaunch Sites: CCAFS LC-14
oTotal Launches: 9
oSuccesses: 7
oFailures: 2
oFirst Flight: July 29, 1960
oLast Flight: May 15, 1963
•Boosters:
oNumber of Boosters: 1
oEngines: 2
oThrust: 1,517.4 kilonewtons (341,130 lbf)
oBurn Time: 134 seconds
oFuel: RP-1/LOX
•First Stage:
oDiameter: 3.0 meters (10.0 ft)
oEngines: 1
oThrust: 363.22 kilonewtons (81,655 lbf)
oBurn Time: 5 minutes
oFuel: RP-1/LOX
Quality Assurance
Aside from the modifications described below, Convair set aside a separate assembly line dedicated to Mercury-Atlas vehicles which was staffed by personnel who received special orientation and training on the importance of the crewed space program and the need for as high quality workmanship as possible. Components used in the Mercury-Atlas vehicles were given thorough testing to ensure proper manufacturing quality and operating condition, in addition components and subsystems with excessive operating hours, out-of-specification performance, and questionable inspection records would be rejected. All components approved for the Mercury program were earmarked and stored separately from hardware intended for other Atlas programs and special handling procedures were done to protect them from damage.
Propulsion systems used for the Mercury vehicles would be limited to standard D-series Atlas models of the Rocketdyne MA-2 engines which had been tested and found to have performance parameters closely matching NASA’s specifications.
All launch vehicles would have to be complete and fully flight-ready at delivery to Cape Canaveral with no missing components or unscheduled modifications/upgrades. After delivery, a comprehensive inspection of the booster would be undertaken and prior to launch, a flight review board would convene to approve each booster as flight-ready. The review board would conduct an overview of all prelaunch checks, and hardware repairs/modifications. In addition, Atlas flights over the past few months in both NASA and Air Force programs would be reviewed to make sure no failures occurred involving any components or procedures relevant to Project Mercury.
The NASA Quality Assurance Program meant that each Mercury-Atlas vehicle took twice as long to manufacture and assemble as an Atlas designed for uncrewed missions and three times as long to test and verify for flight.
Systems Modified
Abort Sensor
Central to these efforts was the development of the Abort Sensing and Implementation System (ASIS), which would detect malfunctions in the Atlas’s various components and trigger a launch abort if necessary. Added redundancy was built in; if ASIS itself failed, the loss of power would also trigger an abort. The system was tested on a few Atlas ICBM flights prior to Mercury-Atlas 1 in July 1960, where it was operated open-loop (MA-3 in April 1961 would be the first closed-loop flight).
The Mercury launch escape system (LES) used on Redstone and Atlas launches was identical, but the ASIS system varied considerably between the two boosters as Atlas was a much larger, more complex vehicle with five engines, two of which were jettisoned during flight, a more sophisticated guidance system, and inflated balloon tanks that required constant pressure to not collapse.
Atlas flight test data was used to draw up a list of the most likely failure modes for the D-series vehicles, however simplicity reasons dictated that only a limited number of booster parameters could be monitored. An abort could be triggered by the following conditions, all of which could be indicative of a catastrophic failure:
•The booster flight path deviated too far from the planned trajectory
•Engine thrust or hydraulic pressure dropped below a certain level
•Propellant tank pressure dropped below a certain level
•The intermediate tank bulkhead showed signs of losing structural integrity
•The booster electrical system ceased operating
•The ASIS system ceased operating
Some failure modes such as an erroneous flight path did not necessarily pose an immediate danger to the astronaut’s safety and the flight could be terminated via a manual command from the ground (e.g. Mercury-Atlas 3). Other failure modes such as loss of engine thrust in the first few moments of liftoff required an immediate abort signal as there would be little or no time to command a manual abort.
An overview of failed Atlas test flights showed that there were only a few times that malfunctions occurred suddenly and without prior warning, for instance on Missile 6B when one turbopump failed 80 seconds into the launch. Otherwise, most failures were preceded by obvious deviations from the booster’s normal operating parameters. Automatic abort was only necessary in a situation like Atlas 6B where the failure happened so fast that there would be no time for a manual abort and most failure modes left enough time for the astronaut or ground controllers to manually activate the LES. A bigger concern was setting up the abort system so as to not go off when normal, minor performance deviations occurred.
Rate Gyros
The rate gyro package was placed much closer to the forward section of the LOX tank due to the Mercury/LES combination being considerably longer than a warhead and thus producing different aerodynamic characteristics (the standard Atlas D gyro package was still retained on the vehicle for the use of the ASIS). Mercury-Atlas 5 also added a new reliability feature—motion sensors to ensure proper operation of the gyroscopes prior to launch. This idea had originally been conceived when the first Atlas B launch in 1958 went out of control and destroyed itself after ground crews forgot to power on the gyroscope motors during prelaunch preparation, but it was phased into Atlas vehicles only gradually. One other Atlas missile test in 1961 also destroyed itself during launch, in that case because the gyroscope motor speed was too low. The motion sensors would thus eliminate this failure mode.
Range Safety
The range safety system was also modified for the Mercury program. There would be a three-second delay between engine cutoff and activation of the destruct charges so as to give the LES time to pull the capsule to safety. The ASIS system could not terminate engine thrust for the first 30 seconds of flight in order to prevent a malfunctioning launch vehicle from coming down on or around the pad area; during this time only the Range Safety Officer could send a manual cutoff command.
Autopilot
The old-fashioned electromechanical autopilot on the Atlas (known as the “round” autopilot due to the shape of the containers its major components were housed in) was replaced by a solid-state model (the “square” autopilot) that was more compact and easier to service, but it would prove a serious headache to debug and man-rate. On Mercury-Atlas 1, the autopilot system functioned well until launch vehicle destruction a minute into the flight. On Mercury-Atlas 2, there was a fair bit of missile bending and propellant slosh. Mercury-Atlas 3 completely failed and had to be destroyed shortly after launch when the booster did not perform the pitch and roll maneuver. After this debacle, the programmer was recovered and examined. Several causes were proposed including contamination of pins in the programmer or perhaps a transient voltage. The autopilot was extensively redesigned, but Mercury-Atlas 4 still had high vibration levels for the first 20 seconds of launch which led to further modifications. Finally on Mercury-Atlas 5, the autopilot worked perfectly.
Antenna
The guidance antenna was modified to reduce signal interference.
LOX Boil-Off Valve
Mercury-Atlas vehicles utilized the boil-off valve from the C-series Atlas rather than the standard D-series valve for reliability and weight-saving reasons.
Combustion Sensors
Combustion instability was an important problem that needed to be fixed. Although it mostly only occurred in static firing tests of the MA-2 engines, three launches (Missiles 3D, 51D, and 48D) had demonstrated that unstable thrust in one engine could result in immediate, catastrophic failure of the entire missile as the engine backfired and ruptured, leading to a thrust section fire. On Missile 3D, this had occurred in flight after a propellant leak starved one booster engine of LOX and led to reduced, unstable thrust and engine failure. The other two launches suffered rough combustion at engine start, ending in explosions that severely damaged the launch stand. Thus, it was decided to install extra sensors in the engines to monitor combustion levels and the booster would also be held down on the pad for a few moments after ignition to ensure smooth thrust. The engines would also use a “wet start”, meaning that the propellants were injected into the combustion chamber prior to igniter activation as opposed to a “dry start” where the igniter was activated first, which would eliminate rough ignition (51D and 48D had both used dry starts). If the booster failed the check, it would be automatically shut down. Once again, these upgrades required testing on Atlas R&D flights. By late 1961, after a third missile (27E) had exploded on the pad from combustion instability, Convair developed a significantly upgraded propulsion system that featured baffled fuel injectors and a hypergolic igniter in place of the pyrotechnic method, but NASA was unwilling to jeopardize John Glenn’s upcoming flight with these untested modifications and so declined to have them installed in Mercury-Atlas 6’s booster. As such, that and Scott Carpenter’s flight on MA-7 used the old-style Atlas propulsion system and the new variant was not employed until Wally Schirra’s flight late in 1962.
Static testing of Rocketdyne engines had produced high-frequency combustion instability, in what was known as the “racetrack” effect where burning propellant would swirl around the injector head, eventually destroying it from shock waves. On the launches of Atlas 51D and 48D, the failures were caused by low-order rough combustion that ruptured the injector head and LOX dome, causing a thrust section fire that led to eventual complete loss of the missile. The exact reason for the back-to-back combustion instability failures on 51D and 48D was not determined with certainty, although several causes were proposed. This problem was resolved by installing baffles in the injector head to break up swirling propellant, at the expense of some performance as the baffles added additional weight reduced the number of injector holes that propellants were sprayed through. The lessons learned with the Atlas program later proved vital to the development of the much larger Saturn F-1 engine.
Electrical System
Added redundancy was made to the propulsion system electrical circuitry to ensure that SECO would occur on time and when commanded. The LOX fuel feed system received added wiring redundancy to ensure that the propellant valves would open in the proper sequence during engine start.
Tank Bulkhead
Mercury vehicles up to MA-6 had foam insulation in the intermediate bulkhead to prevent the super-chilled LOX from causing the RP-1 to freeze. During repairs to MA-6 prior to John Glenn’s flight, it was decided to remove the insulation for being unnecessary and an impediment during servicing of the boosters in the field. NASA sent out a memo to GD/A requesting that subsequent Mercury-Atlas vehicles not include bulkhead insulation.
LOX Turbopump
In early 1962, two static engine tests and one launch (Missile 11F) fell victim to LOX turbopump explosions caused by the impeller blades rubbing against the metal casing of the pump and creating a friction spark. This happened after over three years of Atlas flights without any turbopump issues and it was not clear why the rubbing occurred, but all episodes of this happened when the sustainer inlet valve was moving to the flight-ready “open” position and while running untested hardware modifications. A plastic liner was added to the LOX turbopump to prevent friction rubbing. In addition Atlas 113D, the booster used for Wally Schirra’s flight, was given a PFRT (Pre-Flight Readiness Test) to verify proper functionality of the propulsion system.
Pneumatic System
Mercury vehicles used a standard D-series Atlas pneumatic system, although studies were conducted over the cause of tank pressure fluctuation which was known to occur under certain payload conditions. These studies found that the helium regulator used on early D-series vehicles had a tendency to induce resonant vibration during launch, but several modifications to the pneumatic system had been made since then, including the use of a newer model regulator that did not produce this effect.
Propellant Utilization System
In the event that the guidance system failed to issue the discreet cutoff command to the sustainer engine and it burned to propellant depletion, there was the possibility of a LOX-rich shutdown which could result in damage to engine components from high temperatures. For safety reasons, the PU system was modified to increase the LOX flow to the sustainer engine ten seconds before SECO. This was to ensure that the LOX supply would be completely exhausted at SECO and prevent a LOX-rich shutdown.
Skin
After MA-1 was destroyed in-flight due to a structural failure, NASA began requesting that Convair deliver Atlases with thicker skin. Atlas 10D (as well as its backup vehicle 20D which was later used for the first Atlas-Able flight), the booster used for the Big Joe test in September 1959, had sported thick skin and verified that this was needed for the heavy Mercury capsule. Atlas 100D would be the first thick-skinned booster delivered while in the meantime, MA-2’s booster (67D) which was still a thin-skinned model, had to be equipped with a steel reinforcement band at the interface between the capsule and the booster. Under original plans, Atlas 77D was to have been the booster used for MA-3. It received its factory rollout inspection in September 1960, but shortly afterwards, the postflight findings for MA-1 came out which led to the thin-skinned 77D being recalled and replaced by 100D.
Guidance
The vernier solo phase, which would be used on ICBMs to fine-tune the missile velocity after sustainer cutoff, was eliminated from the guidance program in the interest of simplicity as well as improved performance and lift capacity. Since orbital flights required an extremely different flight path from missiles, the guidance antennas had to be completely redesigned to ensure maximum signal strength. The posigrade rocket motors on the top of the Atlas, designed to push the spent missile away from the warhead, were moved to the Mercury capsule itself. This also necessitated adding a fiberglass insulation shield to the LOX tank dome so it wouldn’t be ruptured by the rocket motors.
Engine Alignment
A common and normally harmless phenomenon on Atlas vehicles was the tendency of the booster to develop a slight roll in the first few seconds following liftoff due to the autopilot not kicking in yet. On a few flights however, the booster developed enough rolling motion to potentially trigger an abort condition if it had been a crewed launch. Although some roll was naturally imparted by the Atlas’s turbine exhaust, this could not account for the entire problem which instead had more to do with engine alignment. Acceptance data from the engine supplier (Rocketdyne) showed that a group of 81 engines had an average roll movement in the same direction of approximately the same magnitude as that experienced in flight. Although the acceptance test-stand and flight-experience data on individual engines did not correlate, it was determined that offsetting the alignment of the booster engines could counteract this roll motion and minimize the roll tendency at liftoff. After Schirra’s Mercury flight did experience momentary roll problems early in the launch, the change was incorporated into Gordon Cooper’s booster on MA-9.
Launches
Nine LV-3Bs were launched, two on uncrewed suborbital test flights, three on uncrewed orbital test flights, and four with crewed Mercury spacecraft. Atlas LV-3B launches were conducted from Launch Complex 14 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.
It first flew on July 29, 1960, conducting the suborbital Mercury-Atlas 1 test flight. The rocket suffered a structural failure shortly after launch, and as a result failed to place the spacecraft onto its intended trajectory. In addition to the maiden flight, the first orbital launch, Mercury-Atlas 3 also failed. This failure was due to a problem with the guidance system failing to execute pitch and roll commands, necessitating that the Range Safety Officer destroy the vehicle. The spacecraft separated by means of its launch escape system and was recovered 1.8 kilometers (1.1 mi) from the launch pad.
A further series of Mercury launches was planned, which would have used additional LV-3Bs; however these flights were canceled after the success of the initial Mercury missions. The last LV-3B launch was conducted on 15 May 1963, for the launch of Mercury-Atlas 9. NASA originally planned to use leftover LV-3B vehicles to launch Gemini-Agena Target Vehicles, however an increase in funding during 1964 meant that the agency could afford to buy brand-new Atlas SLV-3 vehicles instead, so the idea was scrapped.
Mercury-Atlas Vehicles Built and Eventual Disposition
•10D—Launched Big Joe 9/14/59
•20D—Backup vehicle for Big Joe. Reassigned to Atlas-Able program and launched 11/26/59.
•50D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 1 7/29/60
•67D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 2 2/21/61
•77D—Original launch vehicle for Mercury-Atlas 3, replaced by Atlas 100D after postflight findings from Mercury-Atlas 1
•88D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 4 9/13/61
•93D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 5 11/29/61
•100D—Launched Mercury-Atlas 3 4/25/61
•103D—Cancelled
•107D—Launched Aurora 7 (Mercury-Atlas 7) 5/24/62
•109D—Launched Friendship 7 (Mercury-Atlas 6) 2/21/62
•113D—Launched Sigma 7 (Mercury-Atlas 8) 10/3/62
•130D—Launched Faith 7 (Mercury-Atlas 9) 5/15/63
•144D—Cancelled, was planned launch vehicle for Mercury-Atlas 10
•152D—Cancelled
•167D—Cancelled
jsc2025e064749 (07-16-2025) --- Photographic documentation of Artemis Lunar Imaging Orion Crew Configuration with Victor Glover, Christina Koch and Andre Douglas
Photo Credit: NASA/James Blair
Keep designs underwent a significant change in the 12th century when square configurations gave way to more rounded forms. But at Chateau Gaillard, Richard the Lionheart’s donjon is in a shape of its own. Its exterior walls are sloped outward. At the front they join and project forward at a sharp angle. This unique form makes it more resistant to projectiles. On the opposite side, the keep backs onto a sheer cliff, making any approach from this side virtually impossible. Inside, Richard I’s last line of defence is a mere eight metres in diameter. The current point of entry is believed to date from a later period, as the original door would have almost certainly been positioned above ground and reached by a ladder or stairway. With no evidence of a fireplace, well, or latrine, it appears that this particular keep was built exclusively for defence.
Battle Castle is an action documentary series starring Dan Snow that is now airing on History Television and is scheduled to premiere on Discovery Knowledge in the UK in Spring 2012 and on various BBC-affiliated channels in the near future.
For the latest air dates, Like us on Facebook (www.battlecastle.com/facebook) or follow us on Twitter (www.twitter.com/battlecastle)
This show brings to life mighty medieval fortifications and the epic sieges they resist: clashes that defy the limits of military technology, turn empires to dust, and transform mortals into legends.
Website: www.battlecastle.tv/
Twitter: www.twitter.com/battlecastle
YouTube: www.youtube.com/battlecastle
Flickr: www.flicker.com/battlecastle
Facebook: www.facebook.com/battlecastle
Castles conjure thoughts of romantic tales, but make no mistake, they are built for war.
Dover: Prince Louis' key to England. Malaga: the Granadans final stronghold. And Crac des Chevaliers: Crown Jewel of Crusader castles. Through dynamic location footage and immersive visual effects, Battle Castle reveals a bloody history of this epic medieval arms race.
As siege weapons and technology become more ruthless, the men who design and built these castles reply ... or perish. Follow host Dan Snow as he explores the military engineering behind these medieval megastructures and the legendary battles that became testaments to their might.
Each episode will climax in the ultimate test of the castle's military engineering -- a siege that will change the course of history. Which castles will be conquered and which will prevail? You'll have to watch to find out.
But the journey doesn't end there --in fact, it's just beginning. Battle Castle extends into a multi-platform quest, taking us deep into the secret world of medieval warfare and strategy. Become the ultimate 'Castle Master'. Stay tuned for more on the Battle Castle experience.
Blue hour after sunset
Blaue Stunde nach Sonnenuntergang
The Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile (UK: /ˌɑːrk də ˈtriːɒmf, - ˈtriːoʊmf/, US: /- triːˈoʊmf/, French: [aʁk də tʁijɔ̃f də letwal]; "Triumphal Arch of the Star"), often simply called the Arc de Triomphe, is one of the most famous monuments in Paris, France. It is located at the western end of the Champs-Élysées, at the centre of the Place Charles de Gaulle—formerly known as the Place de l'Étoile—named for the star-shaped configuration formed by the convergence of twelve radiating avenues. The monument is situated at the intersection of three arrondissements: the 16th (to the south and west), the 17th (to the north), and the 8th (to the east). Commissioned to honor those who fought and died for France during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, the Arc bears the names of French victories and generals engraved on its inner and outer surfaces. Beneath its vault lies the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier from World War I, marked by an eternal flame commemorating unidentified fallen soldiers.
The central cohesive element of the Axe historique ("historical axis", a sequence of monuments and grand thoroughfares on a route running from the courtyard of the Louvre to the Grande Arche de la Défense), the Arc de Triomphe was designed by Jean-François Chalgrin in 1806; its iconographic programme depicts heroically nude warriors and set the tone for public monuments with triumphant patriotic messages. Inspired by the Arch of Titus in Rome, the Arc de Triomphe has an overall height of 49.54 m (162.5 ft), width of 44.82 m (147.0 ft) and depth of 22.21 m (72.9 ft), while its large vault is 29.19 m (95.8 ft) high and 14.62 m (48.0 ft) wide. The smaller transverse vaults are 18.68 m (61.3 ft) high and 8.44 m (27.7 ft) wide.
Paris's Arc de Triomphe was the tallest triumphal arch until the completion of the Monumento a la Revolución in Mexico City in 1938, which is 67 m (220 ft) high. The Arch of Triumph in Pyongyang, completed in 1982, is modeled on the Arc de Triomphe and is slightly taller at 60 m (197 ft). The Grande Arche in La Défense near Paris is 110 m (361 ft) high, and, if considered to be a triumphal arch, is the world's tallest.
History
Construction and late 19th century
The Arc de Triomphe is located on the right bank of the Seine at the centre of a dodecagonal configuration of twelve radiating avenues.
It was commissioned in 1806, after the victory at Austerlitz by Emperor Napoleon at the peak of his fortunes. Laying the foundations alone took two years and, in 1810, when Napoleon entered Paris from the west with his new bride, Archduchess Marie-Louise of Austria, he had a wooden mock-up of the completed arch constructed. The architect, Jean-François Chalgrin, died in 1811 and the work was taken over by Louis-Robert Goust.
During the Bourbon Restoration, construction was halted until 1823, and it would not be completed until the reign of Louis Philippe I in 1836, by architects Louis-Robert Goust and Jean-Nicolas Huyot, under the direction of Louis-Étienne Héricart de Thury, then by Guillaume-Abel Blouet. The final cost was reported at about 10 million francs (equivalent to an estimated €65 million or $75 million in 2020).
Various designs were proposed to crown the monument with a monumental sculptural group, yet none was permanently realized. In 1838, Bernard Seurre submitted La France victorieuse ("Victorious France"), depicting a chariot drawn by six horses. In 1840, this proposal gave way to a temporary sculptural group representing Napoleon I, installed above the arch by the architect Guillaume-Abel Blouet for the return of the Emperor's remains. In preparing this installation, Blouet returned to a scheme he had drafted in 1834, modifying it by substituting the originally intended allegorical figure of France with that of the Emperor.
From 1882 to 1886, a quadriga by Alexandre Falguière was erected above the arch. The work, entitled Triomphe de la Révolution ("The Triumph of the Revolution"), depicted a chariot drawn by horses advancing "to crush Anarchy and Despotism". Executed in plaster, the group was hoisted to the summit of the monument in order to assess its visual effect. The result was judged unconvincing; although the sculpture remained in place for four years, its material deteriorated under exposure to the elements and it was ultimately removed. Following this episode, the proposal to crown the monument was ultimately abandoned.
20th century
It is said that on the day the Battle of Verdun began in 1916, the sword carried by the figure of the Republic in La Marseillaise sculptural group broke off. The relief was immediately hidden by tarpaulins to conceal the accident and avoid any undesired ominous interpretations. On 7 August 1919, three weeks after the Paris victory parade marking the end of hostilities in World War I, Charles Godefroy flew his Nieuport biplane under the arch's primary vault, with the event captured on newsreel. Jean Navarre was the pilot who was tasked to make the flight, but he died on 10 July 1919 when he crashed near Villacoublay while training for the flight.
Following its construction, the Arc de Triomphe became the rallying point of French troops parading after successful military campaigns and for the annual Bastille Day military parade. Famous victory marches around or under the Arc have included the Germans in 1871, the French and Allies in 1919, the Germans in 1940, and the French and Allies in 1944[16] and 1945. After the interment of the Unknown Soldier, however, all military parades (including the aforementioned post-1919) have avoided marching through the actual arch. The route taken is up to the arch and then around its side, out of respect for the tomb and its symbolism. Both Adolf Hitler in 1940 and Charles de Gaulle in 1944 observed this custom.
By the early 1960s, the monument had grown very blackened from coal soot and automobile exhaust, and during 1965–1966 it was cleaned through bleaching. In the prolongation of the Avenue des Champs-Élysées, a new arch, the Grande Arche de la Défense, was built in 1982, completing the line of monuments that forms Paris's Axe historique. After the Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel and the Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile, the Grande Arche is the third arch built on the same perspective.
In 1995, the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria placed a bomb near the Arc de Triomphe which wounded 17 people as part of a campaign of bombings.
On 12 July 1998, when France won the FIFA World Cup for the first time after defeating Brazil 3–0 at the Stade de France, images of the players including double goal scorer Zinedine Zidane and their names along with celebratory messages were projected onto the arch.
21st century
In late 2018, the Arc de Triomphe suffered acts of vandalism during the yellow vests protests. A crowd of demonstrators sprayed the monument with graffiti and ransacked its museum. In September 2021, the Arc was wrapped in a silvery blue fabric and red rope, as part of L'Arc de Triomphe, Wrapped, a posthumous project planned by artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude since the early 1960s.
Design
Monument
The astylar design is by Jean-François Chalgrin (1739–1811), in the Neoclassical version of ancient Roman architecture. Among the major French academic sculptors represented on the Arc de Triomphe are Jean-Pierre Cortot, François Rude, Antoine Étex, James Pradier, and Henri Lemaire.
The main sculptures are not integral friezes but are treated as independent trophies applied to the vast ashlar masonry masses, not unlike the gilt-bronze appliqués on Empire furniture. The four sculptural groups at the base of the Arc are The Triumph of 1810 (by Jean-Pierre Cortot), The Resistance of 1814 and The Peace of 1815 (both by Antoine Étex), and the most renowned of them all, The Departure of the Volunteers of 1792, commonly called La Marseillaise (by François Rude). The face of the allegorical representation of France calling forth her people on this last was used as the belt buckle for the honorary rank of Marshal of France. The sculptures representing Triumph, Resistance and Peace commemorate Napoleon's victories, the invasion of France in 1814, and the end of hostilities in 1815.
On the attic above the richly sculptured frieze of soldiers are 30 shields engraved with the names of major French victories in the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars. The inside walls of the monument list the names of 660 officers, among which are 558 French generals of the First French Empire; the names of those killed in battle are underlined. Also inscribed, on the shorter sides of the four supporting columns, are the names of the major French victories in the Napoleonic Wars. Battles that took place during the Hundred Days are not included.
Inside the monument, a permanent exhibition, conceived by artist Maurice Benayoun and architect Christophe Girault, opened in February 2007.
Tomb of the Unknown Soldier
Beneath the Arc is the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier from World War I. Interred on Armistice Day 1920, an eternal flame burns in memory of the dead who were never identified (now in both world wars).
A ceremony is held at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier every 11 November on the anniversary of the Armistice of 11 November 1918 signed by the Entente Powers and Germany in 1918. It was originally decided on 12 November 1919 to bury the unknown soldier's remains in the Panthéon, but a public letter-writing campaign led to the decision to bury him beneath the Arc de Triomphe. The coffin was put in the chapel on the first floor of the Arc on 10 November 1920, and put in its final resting place on 28 January 1921. The slab on top bears the inscription: Ici repose un soldat français mort pour la Patrie, 1914–1918 ("Here rests a French soldier who died for the Fatherland, 1914–1918").
In 1961, U.S. President John F. Kennedy and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy paid their respects at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, accompanied by President Charles de Gaulle. After the 1963 assassination of President Kennedy, Mrs. Kennedy remembered the eternal flame at the Arc de Triomphe and requested that an eternal flame be placed next to her husband's grave at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia.
Details
The four main sculptural groups on each of the Arc's pillars are:
The Departure of the Volunteers of 1792, also called La Marseillaise, by François Rude (southern façade, right). This sculptural group celebrates the cause of the French First Republic during the Battle of Valmy. Above the volunteers is the winged personification of Liberty. The group served as a recruitment tool in the early months of World War I and encouraged the French to invest in war loans in 1915–1916.
The Triumph of 1810, by Jean-Pierre Cortot (southern façade, left). This group celebrates the Treaty of Schönbrunn and features Napoleon, crowned by the goddess of Victory.
The Resistance of 1814, by Antoine Étex (northern façade, right). This group commemorates the French Resistance to the Allied Armies during the War of the Sixth Coalition.
The Peace of 1815, by Antoine Étex (northern façade, left). This group commemorates the Treaty of Paris, concluded in that year.
Six reliefs sculpted on the façades of the arch, representing important moments of the French Revolution and of the Napoleonic era include:
The Battle of Aboukir, 25 July 1799, by Bernard Seurre (southern façade, left).
The Funeral of General Marceau, 21 September 1796, by Henri Lemaire (southern façade, right).
The Battle of Jemappes, 6 November 1792, by Carlo Marochetti (eastern façade).
The Capture of Alexandria, 3 July 1798, by John-Étienne Chaponnière (northern façade, left).
The Crossing of the Arcole Bridge, 15 November 1796, by Jean-Jacques Feuchère (northern façade, right).
The Battle of Austerlitz, 2 December 1805, by Théodore Gechter (western façade).
The names of 158 battles fought by the French First Republic and the First French Empire are engraved on the monument. Among them, 30 battles are engraved on the attic.
96 battles are engraved on the inner façades, under the great arches.
The names of 660 military leaders who served during the French First Republic and the First French Empire are engraved on the inner façades of the small arches. Underlined names signify those who died on the battlefield.
The spandrels of the great arches are decorated with allegorical figures representing characters in Roman mythology (by James Pradier).
Access
The Arc de Triomphe is accessible by the RER and Métro, with the closest stop being the Charles de Gaulle–Étoile station. Due to heavy traffic on the roundabout of which the Arc is the centre, pedestrians use two underpasses accessible from the Champs-Élysées and the Grande Armée avenues. A spiral stairway with 240 steps leads visitors to the museum level in the attic of the monument, where large models of the Arc and interactive exhibits on its history, construction, and cultural significance are displayed. Another 40 steps lead to the rooftop terrace, offering a panoramic view of Paris. Elevators providing access to the museum and rooftop terrace are available.
The location of the Arc, as well as the Place de l'Étoile, is shared between three arrondissements: the 16th (to the south and west), the 17th (to the north), and the 8th (to the east).
Replicas
While many structures around the world resemble the Arc de Triomphe, some were actually inspired by it. Replicas that used its design as a model include the Rosedale World War I Memorial Arch in Kansas City, United States (1924); the Arcul de Triumf in Bucharest, Romania (1936); the Arch of Triumph in Pyongyang, North Korea (1982); a miniature version at the Paris Casino in Las Vegas, United States (1999); and the Simpang Lima Gumul Monument in Kediri, Indonesia (2008).
(Wikipedia)
Der Arc de Triomphe de l’Étoile (dt. Triumphbogen an der Place de l’Étoile) oder kurz Arc de Triomphe ist ein von 1806 bis 1836 errichtetes Denkmal im Zentrum der Place Charles de Gaulle in Paris.
Das Bauwerk gehört zu den Wahrzeichen der Metropole und wird vom Centre des monuments nationaux (dt. Zentrum für nationale Monumente) verwaltet, das dem Ministerium für Kultur untersteht.
Unter dem Triumphbogen liegt das Grabmal des unbekannten Soldaten aus dem Ersten Weltkrieg mit der täglich gewarteten Ewigen Flamme, im Französischen Flamme du Souvenir (dt. Flamme der Erinnerung) genannt, im Gedenken an die Toten, die nie identifiziert wurden. Das ganze Jahr hindurch finden Kranzniederlegungen und Ehrungen statt, die ihren Höhepunkt in der Parade am 11. November finden, dem Jahrestag des Waffenstillstands von Compiègne im Jahr 1918.
Für Fußgänger ist der Arc de Triomphe nur durch eine Unterführung erreichbar; der Triumphbogen verfügt über eine Aussichtsplattform.
Der Arc de Triomphe de l’Étoile ist nicht zu verwechseln mit dem weniger bekannten und kleineren Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel, der sich zwischen dem Palais du Louvre und dem Jardin des Tuileries befindet.
Geschichte
Der Triumphbogen diente dem Ruhm der kaiserlichen Armeen und wird von manchen pathetisch als „Altar des Vaterlandes“ bezeichnet, denn an diesem Ort finden die feierlichsten staatlichen Zeremonien Frankreichs statt; häufig führen Festumzüge von hier aus die Avenue des Champs Élysées hinunter oder enden mit dem Arc de Triomphe als Ziel.
Er steht im Zentrum der Place Charles de Gaulle (bis 1970 Place de l’Étoile), am westlichen Ausläufer der Avenue des Champs Élysées. Er ist Teil der „historischen Achse“, einer Reihe von Monumenten und großen Straßen, die aus Paris herausführen. Zwölf Avenuen gehen sternförmig von diesem Triumphbogen ab. Die heutige Form des Platzes entstand 1854, war in Grundzügen aber bereits seit dem späten 18. Jahrhundert so ähnlich angelegt worden, wenn auch nur mit vier Straßen.
Der Triumphbogen selbst wurde von Kaiser Napoleon I. nach der Schlacht bei Austerlitz zur Verherrlichung seiner Siege 1806 in Auftrag gegeben. Am 15. August 1806 wurde der Grundstein zum Bau gelegt. Zwei Jahre dauerte der Bau der Fundamente. 1810 erhoben sich die vier Pylonen des Triumphbogens aber erst bis zu einer Höhe von 1 m. Napoleon heiratete am 1. April 1810 die habsburgische Prinzessin Marie-Louise; er ließ dazu ein provisorisches Modell des Triumphbogens aus Holz und Stuck in originaler Größe errichten. Ähnlich dem Elefanten der Bastille stand diese Ehrenpforte längere Zeit. Der Triumphbogen wurde (anders als der Elefant) letztlich fertiggestellt.
Als der zuständige Architekt Jean-François Chalgrin im Januar 1811 gestorben war und Napoleon am 6. April 1814 abdankte, wurden die Bauarbeiten gestoppt. Louis XVIII. ließ sie 1824 unter der Leitung von Héricart de Thury fortsetzen. 1830 entschied sich König Louis-Philippe I. (oft Bürgerkönig genannt), zur napoleonischen Konzeption zurückzukehren. Er und Adolphe Thiers entschieden über den figurativen Schmuck und seine Ausführenden. Der Bogen wurde 1836 von Huyot und Blouet fertiggestellt. Am 25. Juni 1836 schoss ein 26-jähriger Anarchist namens Louis Alibaud auf die Kutsche des Königs und verfehlte ihn nur knapp. Der König beschloss daraufhin, nicht an der geplanten großen Militärparade teilzunehmen, die am 29. Juli zur Erinnerung an den sechsten Jahrestag der Julirevolution von 1830 und zur Einweihung des Bogens stattfinden sollte.
Jean Navarre, ein Fliegerass im Ersten Weltkrieg, hatte den Plan, am 14. Juli 1919 bei einer Siegesparade durch den Triumphbogen zu fliegen. Navarre stürzte aber am 10. Juli 1919 beim Üben für diesen Flug ab und starb. Am 7. August 1919 durchflog Charles Godefroy mit einer Nieuport 11 „Bébé“ den Triumphbogen. Im Oktober 1981 flog Alain Marchand durch den Triumphbogen.
Der Rundkurs der letzten Kilometer der Schlussetappe der Tour de France, die seit 1975 auf der Avenue des Champs Élysées endet, umrundet den Arc de Triomphe. Bis 2013 führte der Rundkurs direkt vor dem Arc de Triomphe eine Wende aus (und umkreiste ihn somit nicht).
Am Abend des 9. Januar 2015 wurden die Worte „Paris est Charlie“ auf den Triumphbogen projiziert. Die Parole, eine Abwandlung von „Je suis Charlie“, war ein Bekenntnis zu den demokratischen Werten der Meinungs- und Pressefreiheit und eine Solidaritätsbekundung mit den Mitarbeitern des Satiremagazins Charlie Hebdo, die von islamistischen Attentätern erschossen worden waren.
Am 1. Dezember 2018 wurde die Figur der Marianne am Triumphbogen schwer beschädigt, als es im Zuge der Protestaktionen der Gelbwestenbewegung zu schweren Ausschreitungen kam.
Beschreibung
Der Triumphbogen ist 49,54 m hoch, 44,82 m breit und 22,21 m tief. Der große Gewölbebogen misst 29,19 m in der Höhe und 14,62 m in der Breite, der kleine Bogen 18,68 m in der Höhe und 8,44 m in der Breite. Der Entwurf ist im Stil der antiken römischen Architektur gehalten. Die vier Figurengruppen an der Basis des Bogens zeigen Der Auszug der Freiwilligen von 1792, allgemein bekannt als Die Marseillaise (von François Rude), Der Triumph von 1810 (Jean-Pierre Cortot), Der Widerstand von 1814 und Der Frieden von 1815 (Antoine Étex). Oben sind auf den Flächen rund um den Bogen Flachreliefs mit Nachbildungen von wichtigen revolutionären und napoleonischen Siegen eingelassen. Die Innenwände des Triumphbogens beherbergen ein kleines Museum.
Inschriften
Die Innenwände des Triumphbogens führen die Namen von:
660 Militärs – Die meisten davon waren Generäle der Ersten Französischen Republik (1792–1804) und des Ersten Kaiserreichs (1804–1815). Unterstrichene Namen kennzeichnen Personen, die im Kampf gefallen sind.
158 Schlachten – Die 30 bedeutendsten Schlachten Napoleons beginnend mit Valmy sind zuoberst auf dem Fries in fast 50 Metern Höhe zu sehen, während 128 weitere Kriegsereignisse auf den Pfeilern zu finden sind. Verzeichnet sind nur siegreiche Schlachten.
Reliefs
Berühmt ist der Triumphbogen auch wegen der bedeutenden Reliefs, die er trägt. Sie wurden 1833 bei den Bildhauern Antoine Étex, Jean-Pierre Cortot und vor allem François Rude in Auftrag gegeben.
Die Ostfassade zeigt das berühmteste Relief, die Marseillaise (dt. Auszug der Freiwilligen von 1792) von Rude, die auch Le chant du départ, also das Abschiedslied, genannt wird. Es stellt eine Gruppe ausziehender Krieger dar, die in offensichtlich revolutionärer oder erhoben nationaler Gesinnung – zumindest kann man das in dieser Szene vermuten – das neue Revolutionslied der Marseillaise auf den Lippen haben, das erst am 25. April 1792 komponiert worden war.
François Rude übertrifft mit dem heroischen Schwung seiner Darstellung die seiner Konkurrenten auf diesem Triumphbogen bei weitem. Er begann als akademischer Klassizist, aber mit diesem seinem bekanntesten Werk vollzog Rude als einer der ersten die Abkehr vom Klassizismus und die Hinwendung zur Romantik, zu einer neuen heroischen Leidenschaftlichkeit in der Bildhauerei, ähnlich wie Eugène Delacroix in der Malerei.
Interessant ist ein Vergleich der beiden Reliefs dieser Seite. Es handelt sich auf der anderen Seite um den „Triumph Napoleons nach dem Frieden von 1810“ (der „Triumph“ verherrlicht den Frieden von Wien) von Jean-Pierre Cortot. Das Relief von Cortot steht noch ganz in der Tradition der klassizistischen Statik, der gemessenen Heldenverehrung, des symmetrischen, wohlproportionierten Bildaufbaus – mit anderen Worten der „erhabenen Langeweile“.
Auch bei den Reliefs von Antoine Etex auf der Westseite ist diese Atmosphäre deutlich zu spüren, beispielsweise beim „Frieden“. Hier hat man noch den Eindruck, dass die Themen von einer Schauspielertruppe auf einer Theaterbühne dargestellt werden, dass hier Motive aus dem Arsenal zusammengestellt worden sind.
Auf den vier Außenseiten des Bogens befinden sich sechs Flachreliefs, die jeweils berühmte Schlachten zeigen. Unter den sechs Bildhauern ist auch Jean-Jacques Feuchère mit einer Darstellung des Übergangs über die Brücke von Arcole zu sehen.
Kunst
Das Künstlerpaar Christo und Jeanne-Claude beabsichtigte, das Bauwerk im Zeitraum vom 19. September 2020 für 16 Tage bis zum 4. Oktober 2020 für seine Kunstaktion L’Arc de Triomphe, Wrapped (Project for Paris, Place de l’Étoile – Charles de Gaulle) zu verhüllen. Christo verstarb jedoch am 31. Mai 2020. Seinem Wunsch gemäß wurde das Projekt, dessen erste Pläne aus den 1960er Jahren stammten, von seinem Neffen postum umgesetzt. Die Verhüllung war nach zweimonatiger Vorbereitungsarbeit am 18. September fertiggestellt und dauerte bis zum 3. Oktober 2021. Eingesetzt wurden 25.000 Quadratmeter Stoff und 3.000 Meter rote Seile, die jeweils weiterverwendet werden.
Rezeption
Während viele Bauwerke auf der ganzen Welt dem Arc de Triomphe ähneln, wurden einige tatsächlich von ihm inspiriert. Bekannte Beispiele sind der Triumphbogen in Bukarest und der Triumphbogen in Pjöngjang. Zusätzlich zu diesen Nachahmungen gibt es noch weitere Bögen und Denkmäler weltweit, die vom Arc de Triomphe beeinflusst wurden, sei es in Bezug auf das Design, die Größe oder die verwendete Architektur.
(Wikipedia)
From Cubao...
Bus No: 818116
Year released: 2005
Capacity: 53; 2x2 seating configuration
Route: Cubao-Baguio via Dau/SCTEX Concepcion/Capas/Tarlac/Paniqui/Carmen/Villasis/Urdaneta/Rosario
Body: Santarosa Philippines
Model: 2005 SR-EXFOH AC Series
Chassis: Nissan Diesel JA450SSN
Engine: Nissan Diesel PF6A
Fare: Airconditioned
Aircon System: Denso LD8 overhead a/c
Transmission System: M/T
Plate No.: TXA-906
Taken on: June 29, 2011
Location: McArthur Highway, Brgy. San Roque, Tarlac City, Tarlac
The church dedicated to the Saviour's Configuration ("Metamorfosi tou Sotira") is built in the middle of "Palio Chorio" ("Old Village"). It was constructed in the 16th century (1520) and it has the same architectural style as the other two small churches of the village, that of "Panagia Theotokos" and that of Saint George "Perachoritis". Up until 1994, liturgies were conducted daily since it was considered as the village's main church.
It is a rectangular church of the Basilica style and with elements of the Byzantine style. It can accommodate up to 100-150 faithful. Externally it is made of stone and whitewashed.
The inhabitants built extensions to the church in 1880 and 1960 because the village was continuously growing. When they dug the floor they discovered many pieces of frescoes, which surely came from this church. Indeed, they were able to read the name of the hagiographer who was named Symeon Afxentis. He is known for his frescoes of the "Panagia Theotokos" and "Archangel" churches in the village of Galata.
The icon screen is woodcut, as also are the two Psalters that can be found in the church.
There are various remarkable representations dating back to the 16th and 17th century. The icon screen is of various different chronologies.
www.kakopetriavillage.com/churches.html
The settlement of Kakopetria, although mentioned by the mediaeval annalists, existed -at least- since the Frank domination era. The village's region was inhabited around the 6th - 7th century and the various excavations that have been conducted in 1938 around the old village of Kakopetria (in the Ailades venue) prove this. During the excavations a dispenser of an ancient shrine -most probably belonging to the goddess Athena- came to light. A large number of movable findings were found, mainly terra-cotta, many of which depict the goddess Athena, as well as small, limestone, statues and parts of statues and bronze and iron shafts from spearheads and arrows. The findings most probably date back to the Archaic and Classic eras of Cyprus. Other statuettes represent Hercules and are an indication that he was also worshiped in the area along with the goddess Athena. These findings are found in the Archaeological Museum of Nicosia.
BASIC DETAILS
Bus Company/Operator: VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC.
Bus Name: CERES TOURS
Fleet Number: 883
Classification: Air conditioned Inter Provincial Operation Bus
Franchise Route:
Route:
Seating Configuration: 2x2 seater
Seating Capacity: 45 passengers
BUS BODY
Bus Manufacturer: VTI-TEBBAP (Vallacar Transit, Inc. - Transport Engineering Bus Body Assembly Plant)
Bus Model: VTI-TEBBAP Yanson ViKing 11th Generation
CHASSIS
Chassis Manufacturer: Hino Motors, Ltd.
Chassis Model: Hino RK1JMT
Suspension: Leaf Spring Suspension
ENGINE
Engine Manufacturer: Hino Motors, Ltd.
Engine Model: Hino J08C-TK
TRANSMISSION
Type: Manual Transmission
Gear: 6 speed forward and 1 speed reverse
BASIC DETAILS
Bus Company: VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC.
Bus Name: CERES LINER
Fleet Number: 8397
Classification: Non-air Conditioned Inter Provincial Operation Bus
Franchise Route:
Route:
Seating Configuration: 3x2 seater
Seating Capacity 39 passengers
Bus Manufacturer: Yanson VTI-TEBBAP(Vallacar Transit Inc.-Transport Engineering and Bus Body Assembly Plant)
Bus Model: VTI-TEBBAP Yanson Coaster Hino FB
CHASSIS
Chassis Manufacturer: Hino Motors, Ltd.
Chassis Model: Hino FB4J
(FB4J14776)
Suspension: Leaf Spring Suspension
ENGINE
Engine Manufacturer: Hino Motors, Ltd.
Engine Model: Hino J05C-TE
(J05CTE17629)
TRANSMISSION
Type: Manual Transmission
Gear: 5 speed forward and 1 speed reverse
BASIC DETAILS
Bus Company/Operator: VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC.
Bus Name: CERES TOURS
Fleet Number: 80044
Classification: Air Conditioned Inter Provincial Operation Bus
Franchise Route: Cebu City-Santander
Route: Cebu City-Bato via Dalaguete-Oslob
Seating Configuration: 2x2 seater
Seating Capacity: 45+1 passengers
BUS BODY
Bus Manufacturer: Xiamen King Long United Automotive Industry Co., Ltd.
Bus Model: King Long XMQ6111Y
CHASSIS
Chassis Manufacturer: Xiamen King Long United Automotive Industry Co., Ltd.
Chassis Model: XMQ6110R1 LA6R1FS
(LA6R1FSF0CB101336)
Suspension: Air Suspension
ENGINE
Engine Manufacturer: China Yuchai International, Ltd./Guangxi Yuchai Machinery Group, Ltd.
Engine: Yuchai YC6G270-20 G4606
(YC6G27020G4606C00013)
TRANSMISSION
Type: Manual Transmission
Gear: 6 speed forward and 1 speed reverse
BASIC DETAILS
Bus Company: VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC.
Bus Name: CERES LINER
Fleet Number: 8357
Classification: Non-air Conditioned Inter Provincial Operation Bus
Franchise Route:
Route:
Seating Configuration: 3x2 seater
Seating Capacity: 39 passenger
Bus Manufacturer: Yanson VTI-TEBBAP(Vallacar Transit Inc.-Transport Engineering and Bus Body Assembly Plant)
Bus Model: VTI-TEBBAP Yanson Coaster Hino FB
CHASSIS
Chassis Manufacturer: Hino Motors, Ltd.
Chassis Model: Hino FB4J
(FB4J14768)
Suspension: Leaf Spring Suspension
ENGINE
Engine Manufacturer: Hino Motors, Ltd.
Engine Model: Hino J05C-TE
(J05CTE17621)
TRANSMISSION
Type: Manual Transmission
Gear: 5 speed forward and 1 speed reverse
Location: Cebu South Bus Terminal
Natalio B. Bacalso Avenue, Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines
Date Taken: August 22, 2018
*Specifications are subject to verification and may be changed without any prior notice.
In 2012 we received from NASA an order for 6 new models of International Space Station. NASA requested to modify our current model in order to represent the latest changes and additions to ISS so the model will depict the most current and updated configuration.
The foam lining in the transit cases for modified models was adjusted accordingly to accommodate the models and new separate elements.
Along with the order of 6 modified models for NASA we also produced one model in luxury edition for CERN, which was shipped to Geneva, Switzerland and receive excellent feedbacks for its accuracy and versatility.
Visit www.lifeinscale.net/ISS_model-2012_configuration.asp for more information.
How to configure Raspberry Pi for the first time
If you would like to use this photo, be sure to place a proper attribution linking to xmodulo.com
This project is part of the Ars electronica Garden Lima. As we immerse ourselves in the network of alliances, approximations and relationships currently experienced through computers, we are enveloped in an innate need to connect / communicate and stay current in the virtual world; a simulacrum of life itself further established by a pandemic that has confined us to a “flat prison cell”. It is this virtual architecture precisely that makes it possible to place the world at a remove, shortening time and distances thanks to technologies that underpin an ecosystem for discussion and exchange with multiple agents.
For more informations please visit:
ars.electronica.art/keplersgardens/en/lima/
Credit: Edi Hirose
How to configure Raspberry Pi for the first time
If you would like to use this photo, be sure to place a proper attribution linking to xmodulo.com
This was a fun compartment to design. The map background is a playing card. The skull and crossbones is from a new Tim Holtz die-cut. I printed the merchant ship from a Google image and then carefully fit into one of Tim's mini bottles.
So here is my flight to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from where I'll transit to Sandakan in Eastern Malaysia. And here is my Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200 in a dreadful 2-5-2 seat configuration: true cattle class at its worst. I've read of the 2-5-2 configuration before, and, like ghosts or spirits, thought it was mere fantasy and could not really exist. Yikes, it does! Whoever designed this dreadfully uncomfortable 2-5-2 arrangement should be clapped in irons, strapped to the middle seat of the 5-seat middle row and forced to endure a 19 hour flight in a full aircraft! Fortunately, my seat was an aisle seat on the side 2-seat row, and my flight was just 7 hours long. This is my bird just before take off at Dubai International Airport. (Sandakan, Sabah, East Malaysia, Nov.2013)
INSTRUCTIONS AVAILABLE FOR P558 SUPERDUTY - MULTIPLE CONFIGURATIONS
On September 24, 2015, Ford unveiled the 2017 Ford Super Duty line at the 2015 State Fair of Texas. he frame is made from 95% high strength steel and the body (like the contemporary F-150) is made from 6000 series aluminum alloy. For the first time since 1999, both the Super Duty and F-150 lines are constructed using the same cab.
For 2017 production, the Super Duty line shares its powertrain lineup with its 2016 predecessor: a 6.2L gasoline V8, 6.8L V10 (F-450 and above), with a 6.7L diesel V8 available in all versions. The 6.2L gasoline V8 engine remains at 385 hp but torque rises from 405 lb-ft to 430 lb-ft. Additionally, the gasoline V8 produces its max torque at over 700 rpm less than the previous 405 lb-ft engine. The 6.7L diesel engine also remains at the same 440 hp (323 kW) but torque increases from 860 lb-ft upwards to 925 lb-ft.
The 2020 Super Duty debuted at the 2019 Chicago Auto Show. It features a revised grille and tailgate design, new wheel options, and higher-quality interior materials for the Limited trim. A new 7.3-liter gasoline engine is available. Nicknamed "Godzilla", it makes 430 horsepower and 475 lb-ft of torque.
Cab configurations continue to be 2-Door Regular Cab, 4-Door Super Cab, and 4-Door Super Crew Cab, with Short Box (6' 9") and Long Box (8') bed lengths. The truck will be available in F-250, F-350, and F-450 pickup truck models, and F-350, F-450, and F-550 chassis cab models. All will be available in both 4X2 and 4X4 configurations. The F-350 will be the only model available in either Single Rear Wheel (SRW) or Dual Rear Wheel (DRW) configurations, the F-450 and F-550 will only be available in a Dual Rear Wheel (DRW) configuration, and the F-250 will only be available in a Single Rear Wheel configuration.
System configuration--------------------------------------------------------
Nikon D700
Nikon Metal Hood HN-30 : Depth 71mm
Step Up Ring φ60mm to φ62mm
Shangyu Xieqiao Photographic Equipment Factory / Kernel Macro Extension Tube Ring
・#.3 : 25mm for EOS (φ60mm)
・#.3 : 25mm for EOS (φ60mm)
/ Total Hood Depth : 14.2cm
Step Up Ring φ52mm to φ60mm
Step Down Ring φ52mm to φ46mm
Rodenstock APO-Ronar-L 360mm F9 (for Large Format Process Lens)
(The magnification of design criteria is Macro Lens of 1:1. M60 Screw Mount.)
Step Down Ring φ55mm to φ52mm
Nikon BA-R2 Reverse Adaptor Ring φ52mm - Nikon F Mount Total length / 9mm
Nikon F - M42 Mount Change Ring : 10mm
Hanywell Pentax Compact Bellows for M42 : Maximum length / 130mm / This is focasing part.
M42 - Nikon F Mount Change Adaptor Ring
Shangyu Xieqiao Photographic Equipment Factory / Kernel Macro Extension Tube Ring
・Lens mount adapter for Nikon
・Camera body mount adapter for Nikon
・Lens mount adapter for Nikon
・#.3 : 25mm for Nikon (φ57mm) ×3 pieces.
・Camera body mount adapter for Nikon．
Total length / 118mm
Canon Tripod Stand for EF 200mm F2.8 L
Fotomate LP-01 Macro Slider K4G / from Shenzhen, China.
(factory name : Jiangmen Midas Hardware Electronicos Co. LTD ) is used. ×2 sets.
Tripod Stand & Compact Bellows is fixed by Macro Slider. ×2 sets.
The whole can be operated back and forth by using the function of Macro Slider if necessary.
Homemade Macro Extension Tube for Nikon : 120mm
An early configuration of the extra bike racks (for 40 bike capacity) had those rear seats turned into the bike car. I think I like this -- gives more real seating capacity over the current configuration where the seats face each other and we're bumping knees.
Photo courtesy of Devon Yates.
Jen Rizzo has a photo of a new rack that shows the height a little better than my photos do.
For the current configuration (as of Thursday 2/26), see the other photos in the Caltrain new bike racks set. Caltrain operations are experimenting with rack design and placement so send your feedback to Mark Simon @ Caltrain and let him know what you think.
Detroit Speed 1965 Chevelle Test Car. The car currently has the stock 327 4-barrel with a power glide transmission, but look for a new powerplant and driveline soon. This is a one owner car that we purchased in 2001. Some of you may remember this Chevelle from the 2001 Power Tour in which Kyle and Stacy Tucker drove the car cross-country in its stock configuration from Detroit, MI to San Bernardino, CA www.detroitspeed.com/Projects/DSE-1965-Chevelle/dse-1965-...
A very strange configuration of a Leopard I Main Battle Tank.
I had difficulties in identifying this particular vehicle.
I noticed the difference with the Leopard I MBT, this one has a lengthend hull, a battery storage compartment in the rear and a generator in the front with, external, an exhaust pipe to the engine compartment.
It was Bas Pos from Maastricht who brought to my attention that this vehicle has a Cheetah PRTL (CA1 Pantser Rups Tegen Luchtdoelen) hull with a Leopard I turret.
Apparently the turret with the twin 35 mm Oerlikon Anti Aircraft guns was replaced with the Leopard I turret before it was shipped off as a target to the CSK Vlieland.
An image of a Cheetah PRTL can be found here; tanxheaven.com/ljs/cheetahljs/02-PRTL-35mm_Cheetah,Oirsch... (picture; Liejon Schoot)
The baseline configuration of the Oshkart SMTV (Scalable Medium Tactical Vehicle) family, the Mk601A is the standard two-door 6x6 cargo hauler configuration.
Features include opening doors and top hatch, a cab capable of seating 2 minifigs with body armor and headgear, foldable gunner’s seat, turning front wheels, center-pivoting rear axles, and spare tire with lift arm.
A special thanks needs to be given to Abdullah750Pakistan. This originally started as a project to clean up and make a buildable and more minifig-friendly version of his Ural 63708. As you can see though, it’s turned into a project to create a series of trucks in the same vein of the Oshkosh MTVR, Navistar 7000 MV, and Ural 63704-0010 families.
As with my other builds, all parts used in this are real production pieces.
If you're interested in this build, a file can be found here:
Operator: Saulog Transit, Inc.
Bus body no.: 71782, 71785, 71784
Manufacturer: BAR (Daewoo Surplus)
Model: Golden Dragon Marcopolo
A/C System: Overhead
Seating Configuration: 2 x 3
Seating Capacity: 56
Route: Cavite City or Ternate - Lawton
Shot Location: Saulog Transit, Inc. Cavite City Terminal
Image Disclaimer - Please note that all of the images shown are for illustrative purposes only. The rooms pictured are not necessarily typical of the accommodation available at Havannah House, which can vary in terms of size, configuration, and finish.
This is the rare "V" configuration shot where the winner (lane 4) is ahead and everyone fans out like a bunch of geese behind him (e.g. the further from the center of the track, the further back you are). I don't know that I have seen this exact phenomenon before.
This was a heat, not the finals.
All Velos Designwerks forged wheel styles are available in 1, 2, and 3-piece configurations. The Velos XX wheel is the latest addition to their lineup of custom-made forged wheels. As the anchor for their luxury line, the XX implements 3D-like geometry and unique features that are consistent w...
www.vividracing.com/blog/vividracing-client-cars/bmw-f85-...
This a "vintage" image of the DSCOVR spacecraft in a Goddard Space Flight Center clean room.
Credit: NASA
Image source: www8.nationalacademies.org/SSBSurvey/DetailFileDisplay.as...
I lucked out getting the new business class configuration on the Cathay Pacific flight from Hong Kong to Sydney for my snoozing phase of the return journey. Completely flat bed, massage in-built in the chair, big screen tv, herringbone layout of the seats so no leaping required over the person next to you to go for a wander. Very comfy flying!
My other flights had the older configuration which have flat beds but they are positioned on a bit of a slope so you feel like you're sleeping (comfortably though) on a gentle hill.
Needless to say I'm not looking forward to going back to self-funded long-haul economy class international travel after getting a taste of such comfort!
Finally got this one done!!! This is for my sister's birthday. She collects bears (has all kinds except live ones and I wouldn't be surprised if she got one of those too - LOL!) so the collection theme was pretty obvious for me. The problem with the boxes is the individual boxes are pretty small so I really had to search for small enough items.
How to configure Raspberry Pi for the first time
If you would like to use this photo, be sure to place a proper attribution linking to xmodulo.com
This configuration was manufactured between 1919 and 1924.
The following link takes you to my set with more photos of this camera and photos that I took with it:
The church dedicated to the Saviour's Configuration ("Metamorfosi tou Sotira") is built in the middle of "Palio Chorio" ("Old Village"). It was constructed in the 16th century (1520) and it has the same architectural style as the other two small churches of the village, that of "Panagia Theotokos" and that of Saint George "Perachoritis". Up until 1994, liturgies were conducted daily since it was considered as the village's main church.
It is a rectangular church of the Basilica style and with elements of the Byzantine style. It can accommodate up to 100-150 faithful. Externally it is made of stone and whitewashed.
The inhabitants built extensions to the church in 1880 and 1960 because the village was continuously growing. When they dug the floor they discovered many pieces of frescoes, which surely came from this church. Indeed, they were able to read the name of the hagiographer who was named Symeon Afxentis. He is known for his frescoes of the "Panagia Theotokos" and "Archangel" churches in the village of Galata.
The icon screen is woodcut, as also are the two Psalters that can be found in the church.
There are various remarkable representations dating back to the 16th and 17th century. The icon screen is of various different chronologies.
www.kakopetriavillage.com/churches.html
The settlement of Kakopetria, although mentioned by the mediaeval annalists, existed -at least- since the Frank domination era. The village's region was inhabited around the 6th - 7th century and the various excavations that have been conducted in 1938 around the old village of Kakopetria (in the Ailades venue) prove this. During the excavations a dispenser of an ancient shrine -most probably belonging to the goddess Athena- came to light. A large number of movable findings were found, mainly terra-cotta, many of which depict the goddess Athena, as well as small, limestone, statues and parts of statues and bronze and iron shafts from spearheads and arrows. The findings most probably date back to the Archaic and Classic eras of Cyprus. Other statuettes represent Hercules and are an indication that he was also worshiped in the area along with the goddess Athena. These findings are found in the Archaeological Museum of Nicosia.
In "guide boat" configuration.
Windshield seen here www.flickr.com/photos/49353569@N00/5316081368/
was removed after this accident, www.flickr.com/photos/49353569@N00/6106220903/
and a small spray dodger was added similar to the one on the Mackenzie Cuttyhunk "Bevie C" that was in Wooden Boat #138 October '97 page 80.
This canvas "tent' was donated, and we are in the process of modifying it for use next season.
www.flickr.com/photos/49353569@N00/7672218782/in/photostream Many early bass boats sported pipe and canvas tops and I've always liked the "look".
Ready to launch.